THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO CRP 5657 OF 2010 ORDER: The revision is filed against the order in E.A.No.39 of 2005 in E.P.No.69 of 2002 in O.S.No.68 of 1995 on the file of the court of Junior Civil Judge, Ponnur, Guntur District, dismissing the application to set aside the sale held on 19-01-2005 as regards the item No.2 of the schedule property. The decree for money was obtained by the first respondent against the petitioner and in pursuance of the decree two items of the property was brought to sale and subsequently one item was deleted and item No.2 was put to sale on 19-01-2005 where under the second respondent became the highest bidder for a sum of Rs.1,25,000/-. The present application was filed under order XXI Rule 90 CPC contending that E.A No.2 of 2005 was filed to adjourn the auction but it was not considered and the property is worth Rs.1,55,000/- and the upset price was reduced and the auction was knocked out for a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- and it is against law. The suit for maintenance was filed by the petitioner in O.S. No. 276/2004 and therefore the sale was sought to be set aside. The application was opposed by the Decree- Holder (DHR) contending that the value as mentioned by the petitioner is not correct and there are no irregularities in conducting of the sale; the valuation certificate given by the Sub-Registrar was filed and the Amin has filed a Test Report and there was wide publicity and there are no grounds to set aside the sale. The 2nd Respondent also contended that there are no irregularities and the sale is valid. The leaned Junior Civil Judge after considering the material evidence on record dismissed the said application and aggrieved by the said order, the present Revision is filed. The points that arise for consideration are: 1) Whether there are irregularities in conducting of the Sale? 2) Whether the auction conducted on 19-01-2005 is liable to be set aside? POINTS: Earlier the application was dismissed by the learned Junior Civil Judge on 27-12-2007 and thereafter Revision was preferred before this court in CRP No. 546/2008, in which this court passed the following Order – “though several contentions are urged on behalf of both sides, however, it now represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that entire amount in the E.P had been deposited by the petitioner, in respect of which there is no dispute, and further it is also brought to the notice that the said sale is yet to be confirmed. In view of the same, the matter requires reconsideration afresh by the Court below rather than going into the merits at this stage. Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. The orders passed by the court below in E.A.No.39/05 in E.P.No.69/02 in O.S.No.68/95 are set aside and the court below is directed to dispose of the application on merits, in accordance with law, especially taking into consideration the factum of depositing the entire amount. No costs.” Thereafter the matter was heard and the present order under Revision is passed. The counsel for the revision petitioner seriously contends that the decretal amount was deposited by the Judgement Debtor in EA No. 458/2008 on 30-07-2008 and when the Revision is pending against the earlier order, the sale has to be set aside. As can be seen from the record, earlier the petitioner/JDR has filed an application under Order XXI, Rule 89 CPC in EA No. 918/2007 on 31-12-2008 which was more than three (3) years after the auction was conducted on 19-01-2005 and the said EA was dismissed. The said order has become final. Therefore, the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that since the amount has been paid, the application under Order XXI, Rule 89 CPC shall be deemed to have been complied and since there are observations of this court to consider the claim keeping in view the deposit made by the petitioner, cannot be accepted. Evidently, specific provisions have been provided in Civil Procedure Code to protect the interest of the JDR and also the auction purchaser. Court auctions are very difficult to be held and the purchasers in court auctions shall not be put to unnecessary litigation or hazards. The JDR cannot think that at all stages violating the mandatory provisions the proceedings of sale or the benefits of the decree could be denied. Therefore, when once the opportunity under Order XXI, Rule 89 was found to be not maintainable since it was hopelessly barred by time again on the mere pretext of depositing the amount the same cannot be agitated in an application under Order XXI, Rule 90 CPC. The observations made by this court while disposing off the Revision is only to keep in mind if at all there are serious irregularities affecting the sale, even this Court cannot allow the sale to be set aside when the amount was not paid in accordance with the Rules and even after the application under Order XXI, Rule 89 CPC was dismissed. Therefore the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner on this aspect has to be rejected. Therefore, the court is left with only the question as to whether there are any irregularities in conducting of the sale. Two (2) grounds were mentioned in the affidavit. One is that valuation of the property is Rs.1.55 lakhs and whereas the property that was sold is only Rs.1.25 lakhs in favour of the auction purchaser and therefore there is an irregularity. Therefore, the material irregularity canvassed is only about the price. Evidently, with regard to the valuation of the property when earlier notices were given no objection was raised. On the other hand, the valuation certificate of the Sub-Registrar and the Test Report of the Amin were relied upon. Evidently, court auction sale will not fetch market price between a willing seller and the purchaser and participants in court auctions are very few since there are several imponderabilities till the sale certificate is given and delivery of property is affected. The auction purchaser has to part with his money and go round the court as if the litigation is purchased rather than the property. Therefore, the contention that the property was sold for lesser value cannot be accepted. Further more, the difference of the value mentioned by the petitioner is not huge. The petitioner claims that the property is worth Rs.1.55 lakhs whereas the auction is knocked down for Rs.1.25 lakhs. By no stretch of imagination it cannot be said to be a fraudulent sale knocked down for a lesser price. There is no irregularity and the law is also well settled that merely the property fetched a lesser price, when there is no fraud or other irregularity, it is no ground to set aside the sale. It is to be mentioned that at all stages the petitioner is following the execution proceedings and opportunity was given for deleting the Item No.1. Further more merely because the petitioner has filed a suit for maintenance seeking for a charge, the sale cannot be set aside when no charge was created. Therefore, there are absolutely no merits and the allegations in the application to set aside the sale are not tenable and allegations do not show either material fraud or irregularity affecting the sale. The order of lower court does not call for any interference. The points are accordingly answered. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with costs. _______________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J 25-02-2011 TSNR