ORDER
T.Ch. Surya, Rao, J.
1. The revision petitioner seeks to assail the order dated 12.4.2002 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet in E,P.No. 24 of 2000. The facts lie in a narrow compass.
2. The revision petitioner is the judgment-debtor and the respondent herein is the decree-holder. The decree-holder filed EP No. 24 of 2000 in execution of the decree obtained by him against the judgment-debtor for sale and thereby for realisation of the decreatal amount. Eventually, the sale was conducted. Under the impugned docket order, the Executing Court blocked down the sale in favour of the decree-holder, he being the highest bidder. The bid amount was for Rs. 1,68,000/-. It is now being assailed on the premise that the upset price was reduced to Rs. 1,60,000/- at the request of the bidders on the ground that the property would not worth more than Rs. 16,000/-.
3. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner that there was no notice of the sale to the judgment-debtor and behind his back, the sale was conducted at throw-away price and therefore, the sale is not valid.
4. It may be mentioned here that the revision petitioner has not availed the relevant provisions for seeking to set aside
the sale either under Rule 89 or Rule 90 of Order 21 of the Civil Procedure Code. Therefore, whether the present revision petition filed by the revision petitioner seeking to set-aside the impugned docket order and thereby the sale conducted by the Executing Court, is sustainable under law is the moot question.
5. It is obvious that, if this revision petition is entertained for any reason and the impugned docket order is set aside, it would tantamount to setting-aside the sale itself. That apart, it is now represented that the sale has been subsequently confirmed by the Executing Court. A fortiori when the sale has been confirmed, it cannot be sought to be set-aside by filing a revision as against the impugned order, whereunder the sale has been knocked down in favour of the decree-holder, he being the highest bidder. It is always open to the judgment-debtor or the third party auction purchaser to seek to set-aside the sale under the relevant provisions as discussed hereinabove of the Civil Procedure Code. When the petitioner failed to avail such remedies available either under Rule 89 or Rule 90 of Order 21 GPC, the petitioner cannot be permitted to circumvent the said provisions by filing this revision to indirectly achieve the object.
6. Yet another aspect to be considered in this regard is the point of limitation. Under Article 127 of the Limitation Act, time is prescribed for filing the application seeking to set-aside the, sale. Obviously that time has been elapsed by now. What is not available, having been barred by limitation, cannot be permitted to be achieved indirectly, as it would tantamount to circumventing the specific provisions incorporated in the statute in regard thereto. Therefore, it is a clear case where the judgment-debtor having not availed the remedies available either under Rule 89 or Rule 90 of Order 21 of the Civil Procedure Code, cannot now be
permitted to achieve the same by maintaining this revision petition indirectly to set aside the sale. In my considered view, therefore, the present revision petition is mis-conceived, and is not maintainable.
7. Another facet to be considered is the absolute prohibition incorporated in Sub-rule (3) of Rule 92 of Order 21 of the Civil Procedure Code. This provision prohibitits any other remedy when once the sale is confirmed. In any view of the matter, the present revision petition cannot be maintained.
8. The civil revision petition is, therefore, dismissed at the threshold. No
costs.