ORDER :- This revision is directed against the docket order in E.P. No.30 of 2005 in O.S.No.85 of 2003, dated 5-9-2006 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Kamareddy, whereby learned Senior Civil Judge ordered for issuance of warrant of proclamation of sale of E.P. schedule property i.e. house, and publication in Vaartha daily newspaper of Nizamabad District Edition.

2. Brief facts are that the revision petitioner is the judgment-debtor and the respondent is the decree-holder. The respondent instituted the suit being O.S. No.85 of 2003 against the petitioner for recovery of money on the foot of a promissory note. Though the petitioner contested the said suit, the same was decreed. Despite the fact that there was a decree against the petitioner, he has not chosen to honour the said decree. Hence, the respondent filed E.P.No.30 of 2005 in execution of the said decree. Though notice was sent to the petitioner in the said E.P., he has not chosen to pay the said amount and hence, a notice i.e. to bring the properties, which were under attachment, to be sold and proceeds to be paid to person entitled, was issued. Thereafter, the executing Court ordered for issuance of warrant of proclamation of sale of E.P. schedule property i.e. house, and publication in Vaartha daily newspaper of Nizamabad District Edition. The petitioner challenges the said order stating that the proclamation of sale published in Vaartha daily newspaper of Nizamabad District Edition, is not in conformity with the provisions of Order XXI Rule 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, the Code).

3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the respondent and perused the impugned order and other material on record.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that though the petitioner produced the market value certificate of the property in question before the executing Court, the respondent has not mentioned the value of the property furnished by the petitioner in the proclamation of sale published in Vaartha newspaper and the same is hit by the second proviso to Order XXI Rule 66 of the Code. In support of his contentions, learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the provisions of Order XXI Rule 66(2)(a)(e) of the Code and the second proviso to Rule 66 of Order XXI of the Code as well as the paper publication pertaining to the proclamation of sale published in Vaartha daily newspaper.

5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent opposed the said submissions stating that the said proclamation is in conformity with Order XXI Rule 66 of the Code and the order of the executing Court is perfectly justified and needs no interference.

6. In view of the rival contentions, it is apt to refer to the provisions of Order XXI Rule 66(2)(a) & (e) of the Code.

"66. Proclamation of sales by public auction.-

(1) .....................

(2) Such proclamation shall be drawn up after notice to the decree-holder and the judgment debtor and shall state the time and place of sale, and specify as fairly and accurately as possible-

(a) the property to be sold (or, where a part of the property would be sufficient to satisfy the decree, such part);

(b) ..................

(c)

(d)

(e) every other thing which the Court considers material for a purchaser to know in order to judge of the nature and value of the property :

PROVIDED........... .

PROVIDED FURTHER that 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."

7. Admittedly, the suit is one for recovery of money, which was decreed and the decretal amount as on the date of proclamation was estimated at Rs.12,94,503/-. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that according to sub-rule (2) of Rule 66 of Order XXI of the Code, the Court has to issue a notice to both the decree-hold

Click Here to Read the rest of this document