estimation for auction of the property, but he failed to do it and his failure is out of his indolence alone. One would also notice that this revision petitioner initially filed the application on 27.06.2019 and that was returned and thereafter, it was represented on 01.07.2019. The purport of this observation is that in between these two dates the sale was confirmed on 28.06.2019. Thus, subsequent to confirmation of sale, the application was filed before the learned lower Court. A reading of the impugned order at the admitted facts it could be seen and from the grounds of revision one would notice that long prior to the auction sale proceedings, this very revision petitioner claiming title within himself filed petition under Order XXI Rule 58 C.P.C. in E.A.No.101 of 2015 and after due trial and contest, his petition was dismissed holding that he had no absolute rights over the property. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner fairly concedes that the said order remained final and no appeal was preferred. Order XXI Rule 58 Sub-rule (4) permits an appeal to be preferred as against an adverse order passed under Order XXI Rule 58 C.P.C. From these facts and circumstances, it became clear that despite an adverse order against the rights claimed by this revision petitioner claiming his title over the immovable property, he did not go an appeal and thus, that order remained final. When once it is noticed that he had no right over the E.P. schedule immovable property, the question of considering him as a person, whose interests are effected by the auction sale in terms of Order XXI Rule 90(1) C.P.C. does not arise. It is these provisions that inspired the lower Court not to entertain his petition. On this aspect of the matter, learned counsel for the revision petitioner failed to cite any legal authorities
