L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal filed under Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of civil Procedure ( cpc for brevity) against the order dated 6. 3. 2003 passed by the senior Civil Judge, Hindupur in E. A. No. 228 of 2002 in E. P. No. 32 of 2001 in OS No. 24 of 1998. Appellant is the Decree holder and respondent is the judgment debtor.

( 2 ) THE appellant filed the suit to recover certain amount from the respondent. The suit was decreed. For realization of the decretal amount, the appellant filed E. P. No. 32 of 2001. An item of immovable property was brought to sale on 15. 2. 2002. The appellant himself emerged as the highest bidder for a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/ -. The sale is yet to be confirmed.

( 3 ) THE respondent filed E. A. No. 228 of 2003 under Order XXI Rule 90 C. P. C. to set aside the sale of E. P. schedule property. He contended that the value of the property is about Rs. 6,00,000/- as certified by the concerned Sub-Registrar whereas in the sale proclamation it was indicated as rs. 1,00,000/ -. He contended that it was a clear case of mis-representation and fraud on the part of the appellant and he suffered gross injustice on account of the same. The other grounds pleaded by him were that the auction was held in the court premises and not at the site of the property, the sale proclamation was defective, and the publication was made in English though it required to be published in the language of the locality.

( 4 ) THE respondent examined himself as P. W. I and marked Ex. Al, the valuation certificate, issued by the Sub-Registrar. The appellant was examined as R. W. 1 and on his behalf Exs. Bl to B4 were marked. Through the order under appeal, the executing Court set aside the sale on the ground that the valuation of the property furnished by the petitioner was far less than the actual value as evident from Ex. A1.

( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant, sri O. Manohar Reddy, submits that the order under appeal cannot be sustained in law. According to him, it is not obligatory on the part of the Court to ascertain the value of the property proposed to be sold and it is always competent for the Court to accept the value that is furnished by the parties. Placing reliance upon Rules 62 and 90 of Order XXI C. P. C. , he further contends that if at all the respondent was of the view that the value of the property was not correctly indicated, it was open to him to take objection or appropriate steps at the time of conducting auction or before that. Learned Counsel urges that the respondent waited till the proceedings concluded and raised the objection only with a view to protract the proceedings.

( 6 ) SRI E. V. Bhagirath Rao, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the respondent was kept in dark of various developments as regards the sale and valuation and only at a later stage he came to know about the irregularities that crept into the matter. He contends that though it is not obligatory for the Court to ascertain the value of the property, once it has undertaken such exercise, it should be with reference to the reliable material and not on hearsay.

( 7 ) THE decree obtained by the appellant against the respondent has become final. Execution proceedings were initiated and an item of immovable property was got attached. Sale proceedings were initiated in accordance with the provisions of Order XXI C. P. C. There is no controversy between the parties up to the stage of service of notice, Ex. Bl, on the respondent for the purpose of settling the terms of auction. While settling the terms, the appellant furnished the value of the property at Rs. 1,00,000/ -. Totally different consequences would have ensued, had the executing Court proceeded to conduct the sale after ensuring that necessary notices are served on the respondent. The record does not disclose as to whether the terms of auction were settled in the presence of the respondent or whether he was put on notice as to the subsequen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document