( 1 ) THE petitioner-plaintiff filed this revision petition aggrieved by setting aside the sale ordered in EP No. 1/1992 for due execution of decree for recovery of amount obtained by him in OS No. 50/81 by the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri in EA No. 40/ 94 dated 31-12-2001 as confirmed by the additional District Judge, Anantapur in CMA no. 7/2002 dated 26-12-2002.

( 2 ) THIS revision raises some points of practical importance in exercising the powers by the Civil Court under Order 21, rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "the Code") to set aside the sale ordered by it in execution of decree and appropriate procedure for challenging its decision in ordering sale.

( 3 ) ON filing EP No. 1/92 by the petitioner-Decree Holder to sell the EP schedule property for due recovery of the decretal amount, the executing Court ordered sale notice to the respondent-Judgment debtor. He engaged an advocate to defend his case. On failure of his filing counter, he was set ex parte and EP was adjourned for filing SP and EC. On filing SP and EC, the executing Court again ordered fresh sale notice and the respondent was set- ex parte though notice was served by affixture. Accordingly, property was auctioned on 27-8-1993. The petitioner- decree Holder became the higher bidder for Rs. 28,000/ -. Before confirmation of sale, respondent filed above EA for setting aside the sale contending that sale notice was not served on him though he continuously residing at his native place, therefore affixture of the same by the process Server is an irregularity and is not proper service. It was further contended that sale notice was published in newspaper by name Sadhana which was having a very little circulation. Further sale was not proclaimed in the village by beat of torn torn and sale notice was not affixed at the village Chavidi. He was not given an opportunity to give market value of the property and the sale, which was knocked down in favour of the respondent, is much below the market value and the sale is vitiated.

( 4 ) THE respondent contested the same contending that the properties were attached before judgment and notice under order 21, Rule 54 was served on the respondent and no further notice is required to be served once again. Even otherwise, notice as contemplated under Order 21, rule 66 (2) of the Code was served by affixture. As he engaged an advocate, it amounts to sufficient service.

( 5 ) EXECUTING Court after going through the material on record held that though respondent-judgment debtor engaged an advocate earlier, on failure to file counter, he was set ex parte. Even though the court ordered fresh notice the same was not properly served. Even if the service of sale notice by affixture amounts to proper service, sale notice had not been issued under Order 21, Rule 54 (1a) of the Code. In view of the same, issuing a notice under order 21, Rule 66 (2) CPC is a must and no such notice is issued before settlement of terms. Since no notice either under order 21, Rule 54 (1a) or under Order 21, rule 66 (2) was issued, sale is vitiated and accordingly set-aside the sale. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the Additional district Judge, Anantapur by filing CMA no. 7/2000. The Additional District Judge after going through the record held that the material available on record would clearly disclose that there was no compliance of the mandatory provisions under Order 21, rule 66 (2) and sale proceeded caused substantial injury to the respondent; As per the amendment effected to Order 21, rule 66 (e) which is applicable to A. P. , the value of the property as stated by the decree Holder and the Judgment Debtor must be stated in the proclamation and as the Judgment Debtor has not given the value, substantial prejudice has been caused to the judgment Debtor, executing Court rightly set-aside the sale, which do not require any interference and while holding so dismissed the appeal.

( 6