1. This revision is filed under Section 115 CPC challenging the order dated 09-12-2002 in C.M.A.No.2 of 1999 of the Senior Civil Judge, Addanki modifying the order dated 29-12-1998 in E.A.No.576 of 1996 in E.P.No.31 of 1994 in O.S.No.103 of 1979 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki.

2. Heard Sri Korrapati Subbarao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the 1st respondent and respondents 6 and 7, Sri G.Pedda Babu, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and Sri G.Subba Rao, learned counsel for the 5th respondent. None appeared for the 4th respondent. By order dated 23-12-2011, C.R.P. was dismissed for default as against the 3rd respondent.

3. The suit O.S.No.103 of 1979 was filed on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki by the 2nd respondent on the basis of a promissory note against the 1st respondent. The said suit was decreed on 11-12-1984. E.P.No.31 of 1994 was filed by the decree holder/2nd respondent to bring the E.P. schedule properties (three items) to sale to recover an amount of Rs.18,449/- as per the above decree. During the pendency of suit itself, the E.P. schedule properties had been attached under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC in I.A.No.700/1979 on 13-07-1979. The three properties which were brought to sale in the E.P. are as under:

“Item No.1:

Rachapudi Village, Korisapadu Mandal, Prakasam District.

1. Patta No.48. Sy. No.6 out of Ac.3.30 cents : Ac.0.76 cts

2. Patta No.246. Sy. No.9/4 out of Ac.2.26 cents : Ac.0.56 cts Ac.1.32 cts

Item No.2:

Ac.3.32 cents in S.No.24 in Rachapudi village. This property was not brought to the sale.

Item No.3:

2. Item No.3 consists of three properties an extent of Ac.1.42 cents in Sy. No.138/1, an extent of Ac.0.49 cents in S.No.140/6 and an extent of Ac.0.05 cents in S.No.140/8 and the total extent is Ac.1.96 cents situated in Pamidipadu village.”

4. After the E.P. was filed, notices under Order 21 Rule 22 of CPC were served on the judgment debtor/1st respondent. He entered appearance through an advocate and filed objections on 02-02-1995. The objections were overruled by the executing court on 19-04-1995. On 06-09-1995, sale papers and encumbrance certificates in respect of the E.P. schedule properties were filed. On 30-10-1995, sale notice was ordered along with proclamation schedule. On 17-04-1996, the judgment debtor/1st respondent was set ex parte as he had not filed any counter. On 13-04-1996, the executing court settled the terms of the sale of the E.P. schedule properties. On 01-07-1996, sale was held for item No.1 of the E.P. schedule and the petitioner became the highest bidder for an amount of Rs.17,700/- out of five bidders. On the same day, sale of item No.3 of the E.P. schedule was also held and the 5th respondent became the highest bidder for the said item for an amount of Rs.24,000/-. On 08-07-1996, the E.P. was posted for further steps.

5. On 29-08-1996, E.A.No.576 of 1996 was filed by the judgment debtor/1st respondent under Order 21 Rule 90 r/w Section 47 and 151 CPC to set aside the sale alleging that his father had died intestate; that on his death, the respondents 3 and 4 became co-owners with him (i.e., the 1st respondent) in view of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956; that the 1st respondent had been sued in his individual capacity and not as Manager of the family; that the 1st respondent cannot represent the interest of the 4th respondent as she was married long ago and she was no longer a member of the family of the 1st respondent; therefore the property shown in the E.P. schedule is not legally saleable and the very order of the sale of properties itself is illegal; that there was no attachment of properties brought to sale as contemplated under law and procedure laid down by law was not at all followed; there can be no sale of properties without proper attachment; that the decree holder did not take notices as contemplated under Order 21 Rule 66 CPC; the form of notices utilized both