ORDER
N.Y. Hanumanthappa, J.
1. The petitioner is an auction-purchaser in the sale proceedings that were held pursuant to the orders passed on 26-8-1994 in E.P.59 of 1986, arising out of judgment and decree in O.S. No. 313 of 1978. Mr. Venkateswara Rao (respondent No. 1 herein) is the judgment-debtor and Punjab National Bank (respondent No. 2 herein) is the decree-holder. After obtaining the decree, the decree-holder for its realisation brought the properties of judgment-debtor for sale including the one purchased by the petitioner herein. The date of auction sale was 23-4-1993. The bid amount was Rs. 25,500-00. As per the sale notice, the petitioner deposited 1/4th of the bid amount on the next day. On 26-8-1994 the judgment-debtor filed a petition seeking permission to deposit the decretal amount of Rs. 63,000-00 which was allowed by the executing Court treating the said application as one filed under Order XXI Rule 89 C.P.C. The said application was in fact opposed by the petitioner herein on two grounds, namely, when sale was held on 23-4-1993 it is not proper to entertain such application Under Section 151 CPC, and since he being the auction purchaser, he seeking permission to deposit the amount shall not be granted as the said application was filed beyond two months; thus barred by limitation. But the executing Court after hearing, allowed the application filed Under Section 151 C.P.C.
2. Sri Vinay Kumar, learned Advocate for the petitioner, submitted that the entire proceedings of the executing Court are quite arbitrary and illegal. When petitioner participated in the sale proceedings and purchased one of the properties brought for sale by paying the entire decretal amount, executing objections and also should have considered his submission that the petition filed was barred by limitation particularly in view of Section 127 of the Limitation Act. He also submitted that when the sale was conducted pursuant to the Court order and if a third person participates and gives a highest bid, to mockery of the proceedings. Thus arguing submitted that the petition be dismissed.
3. Sri M, Srinivasa Rao, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1, argued that the approach of the executing Court is quite correct and reasonable. According to him mere purchase will not confer any right on the purchaser unless the same is confirmed. In addition to this by Court’s order dated about the said order, yet participated in the auction sale and purchased the property and therefore he cannot now contend that the executing Court was not correct in not confirming the sale or at least should have permitted him to file objections and to be heard in the matter. Thus arguing submitted that the petition be dismissed.
4. Order dated 15-4-1993 passed by the executing Court in E.P. 59 of 1993 reads as follows:-
“As per orders passed on stay petition E.As. 98/93, 113/93, 115/93, 117/93 and 121/93, the sale of items in respect of which claim petitions E.A. Nos. 97/93, 112/93, 116/93 and 120/93 are filed is not stopped but it is ordered that sale shall take place but sale shall not be confirmed pending disposal of the claim petition.”
5. The petitioner was aware of these proceedings and yet he participated in the sale proceedings offering his highest bid. Therefore, it will not confer any right on the petitioner unless the same is confirmed. In the instant case no such sale was confirmed. Before confirmation judgment debtor requested the Court to permit him to pay the decretal amount which was granted and judgment debtor paid it which in turn was accepted by the decree-holder. The executing ‘Court while taking into consideration this aspect “allowed judgment debtor’s petition. The contentions raised in this revision petition, for the reasons given above, do not call for any examination. However, the petitioner is at liberty to withdraw his amount with interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the total amount deposited with effect from 1-5-1993. The judgment debtor to pay interest at 12% per annum instead of 5% as ordered by the executing Court within sixty days from today.
6. With the above observations, this C.R.P. is disposed of.