Research › Browse › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

1985 DIGILAW 103 (MAD)

V. P. Sarangapani Rounder v. Messrs. Mercantile Credit Corporation Ltd. , Madras

1985-02-22

MAHESWARAN

body1985
Judgment :- 1. The common question involved in both these civil revision petitions is whether the Court below has committed an irregularity in not mentioning the value of the property in the sale proclamation as stated by the judgment-debtors. There is an amendment to O. XXI, R-66 of the Code of Civil Procedure, made by the High Court of Madras. Sub-R. (2) of R. 66 of O. XXI, has been substituted by the following: “Order XXI, Rule 66:— (1) (2) The terms of such proclamation shall be settled in court after notice to the decree holder and judgment-debtor, except in cases where notices have already been served under O. XXI, R. 64, and such proclamation shall state the time and place of sale and specify as accurately as possible— (a) the property to be sold; (b) the revenue assessed upon the estate, or part of the estate, where the property to be sold is an interest in an estate or part of an estate paying revenue to the Government; (c) any encumbrance to which the property is liable; (d) any amount for the recovery of which the sale is ordered; (d-1) the upset price fixed by the Court; (e) the value of the property as stated— (i) by the decree-holder; and (ii) by the judgment-debtor; and (f) every other thing which the court considers material for a purchaser to know in order to judge the nature and value of the property.” The judgment-debtors, in this case, have stated the value of the property in the counter-affidavit, but the court has not made reference to the value of the property in the sale proclamation as stated by the judgment-debtors. In my view, the omission to mention the judgment-debtors valuation is a material irregularity which may vitiate the sale. The reason is, if that value is not mentioned a judgment-debtor may suffer substantial injury. As this is a material irregularity, these revisions have to be allowed and are hereby allowed. The orders passed by the court below in E.A. 100 of 1984 in O.S. 9011 of 1976 and E.A. 104 of 1984 in O.S. 9571 of 1976 are set aside and the matters are remitted to the court below for stating the value of the property as stated by the judgment-debtors in the proclamation and to fix fresh date for settlement of proclamation. There will be no order as to costs.