( 1 ) THE order, dated 3. 12. 2003 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, kurnool, in E. P. No. 354 of 2002 in O. S. No. 73 of 1994 is hereby challenged.

( 2 ) HEARD the Counsel for the petitioner. The Counsel for the respondent is not present.

( 3 ) THE petitioner is the judgment-debtor and the respondent is the decree-holder.

( 4 ) FOR the sake of convenience, the petitioner and the respondent will be hereafter referred to as "the judgment-debtor and the decree-holder" respectively.

( 5 ) FROM the impugned order, it appears that the sale publication was filed on the date of passing of the impugned order. Both the Counsel representing the decree-holder and judgment-debtor were also present on that day and it appears that the judgment-debtor was willing to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000. 00 and sought for adjournment of the sale. Since the decree-holder did not agree for the same, the Court below proceeded with the sale. It is also pointed out in the impugned order that the E. P. schedule does not contain the market value and the valuation of the officer of the Court was on record as Rs. 2,00,000. 00. Accordingly, the upset price was fixed as Rs. 2,00,000. 00 and on the same day, the sale was conducted in the open Court and the auction was knocked down in favour of the decree- holder.

( 6 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he was not served with any notice about the sale proclamation and that he had no opportunity to file his objections as well as the valuation of the property.

( 7 ) IN a decision of the apex Court in gajathar Prasad v. Bhakta Ratan, air 1973 SC 2593, which was followed in desh Bandhu Gupta v. N. L. Anand and rajinder Singh, (1994) 1 SCC 131, the principle laid down was that the Court should indicate the value assessed by the judgment-debtor, decree-holder and the officer of the Court and leave the rest to the prospective purchaser. In other words, the best judge would be the purchaser. It is because sometimes the decree-holder would undervalue the property and in such cases, the judgment-debtor is deprived of filing all his objections, particularly regarding the valuation of his property, which is going to be brought for sale.

( 8 ) IN this regard, for a ready reference, the first proviso to sub-rule (2) of rule 66 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil procedure (in short "the Code") is extracted as under:"where notice of the date for settling the terms of the proclamation has been given to the judgment-debtor by means of an order under Rule 54, it shall not be necessary to give notice under this rule to the judgment-debtor unless the Court otherwise directs. "

( 9 ) THIS proviso was introduced by act 104 of 1976 to the Code of Civil procedure. From the above proviso, it is clear that notice of the date of settling the terms of proclamation has to be given to the judgment-debtor by means of an order under Rule 54 of Order 21 of the code. There is no necessity to give a fresh notice under this rule to the judgment-debtor. The second proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 66 is as under: "nothing in this rule shall be construed as requiring the Court to enter in the proclamation of sale its own estimate of the value of the property, but the proclamation shall include the estimate, if any, given, by either or both of the parties. "

( 10 ) THE second proviso makes it clear that the Court is not at an obligation to enter in the proclamation of the sale on its own estimation of the value of the property, but it is incumbent upon the executing Court to indicate the estimation, if any, made by both the parties.

( 11 ) THEREFORE, it is to be construed that no doubt the procedure under clause (b) to sub-rule (2) of Rule 66 has to be scrupulously followed, but the same is subject to the provisos. In other words, the provisos are exceptions to clause (e) to sub- rule (2 ).

( 12 ) AS already recorded in the earlier paragraphs, the Apex Court in Desh Bandhu gupta v. N. L. Anand and Rajind