P.S. Narayana, J.
1. Heard Sri P. Venkat Reddy, the counsel representing the revision petitioner and Sri Prasad, the counsel representing respondents.
2. The revision is filed as against the docket order dated 25-8-2005 in S. R. No. 6720 of 2005 in E.P. No. 143 of 2002 in O.S. No. 92 of 1999 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Proddutur. The application filed by the revision petitioner-judgment debtor under Order XXI Rule 83 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was returned as not maintainable in view of the fact that the decree obtained by the decree holder in O.S. No. 92 of 1999 aforesaid, is a mortgage decree. It is also brought to the notice of this court that subsequent to the filing of this application and return of the same, sale also was held.
3. Be that as it may, Order XXI Rule 83 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 deals with postponement of sale to enable the judgment debtor to raise amounts of decree. However, Sub-rule (3) specifies “nothing in this rule shall be deemed to apply to a sale of property directed to be sold in execution of a decree for sale in enforcement of a mortgage of, or charge on, such property.”
4. In the light of the same it cannot be said that the impugned order suffers from any legal infirmity whatsoever. Even otherwise, in view of the fact that the sale already was held, no further orders need be passed in the present C.R.P. Viewed from any angle, the C.R.P is devoid of merit and accordingly, the same shall stand dismissed. No costs.