Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 836 (AP)

Addula Venkat Reddy v. L. Chandra Mouli

2010-08-27

GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA

body2010
ORDER :- This civil revision petition, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is directed against the order dated 21.10.2008 passed in EP No.53 of 2007 in as No.130 of 2005 on the file of the I-Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar, whereby the property of the judgment debtor was sold in auction by following the procedure provided for under Order XXI Rule 69(2) of the C.P.C. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the 1st respondent herein filed a suit being OS No.130 of 2005 on the file of the I-Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar, against the petitioner herein for recovery of money, and the same was decreed on 7.12.2006. However, as the said decretal amount was not paid, the decree holder filed EP No.53 of 2007 in the suit seeking attachment and sale of the scheduled property. In the said E.P., the proclamation for sale of the attached property in auction on 27.8.2008 was published in Praja Shakti Telugu Daily Newspaper on 18.8.2008. But however, on 27.8.2008, the day on which the attached property was to be auctioned, the judgment debtor filed a petition seeking twenty days time for payment of the entire decretal amount and postponement of the said sale, and the said petition was allowed on that day itself grating time upto 24.9.2008, and as such, the sale was postponed and the matter was adjoumed. Subsequently, since the judgment debtor could not deposit the amount within the time granted, the attached property was sold in auction on 21.10.2008 for an amount of RsA,50,000/-. Aggrieved thereby, the present civil revision petition is filed by the judgment debtor. 3. Leamed Counsel for the petitioner judgment debtor submits that generally when once a proclamation for sale of the property on a particular date is made, the sale shall take place on the scheduled day itself and if, for any reason, the sale does not take place on that day and is postponed beyond 30 days, a fresh proclamation is required to be made. He also submits that in the case on hand also, though the sale was initially proposed on 27.8.2008, it could not take place on that day and the same was postponed and conducted on 21.10.2008 i.e., beyond a period of 30 days, without a fresh proclamation being made, and therefore, the sale conducted on 21.10.2008 is contrary to Order XXI Rule 69(2) of C.P.C. 4. Per contra, leamed Counsel for the 1st respondent-decree holder submits that there was another suit being OS No.10 of 2006 between the same parties, and it was also decreed. He also submits that when the decretal amount in that suit OS No.10 of 2006 was not paid, the decree holder filed EP No.52 of 2007 and a proclamation for sale of the attached. property therein was ordered for realization of the decretal-amount of Rs.l,49,940/-. He further submits that in EP No.52 of 2007, the judgment debtor filed a memo, wherein he admitted the sale of the landed property to an extent of Acs.6.01 gts. in Sy.No.364/AA situated at Aloor Village of Jadcherla Mandai, Mahabubnagar District, in the present E.P., for an amount of RsA,50,000/-, and stated that the sale proceeds in the present E.P. is sufficient to satisfy the decretal amount in both EP No.52 of 2007 and also the present E.P. 5. In the light of the aforesaid submissions, though technically the sale conducted in the present E.P. is not correct, the petitioner, having filed a memo in EP No.52 of 2007 in another suit admitting the sale of the attached property in the present E.P. and seeking the decree holder to realize the decretal amount payable by him in connection with another suit from the sale proceeds in the present E.P., cannot go round and take an objection that the sale conducted in the present E.P. is not in accordance with Order XXI Rule 69(2) of C.P.C. 6. The civil revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.