ORDER :

The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section

115 of Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 07.01.2022 dismissing E.P.No.27 of 2013 in O.S.No.111 of 1987 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District, filed under Order XXI, Rules 22, 64 to 68 CPC for realization of the decreetal amount of Rs.4,00,277-45 ps.

2. Heard Sri Venkateswarlu Kolla, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri V.Satyanarayana Nekkanti, learned counsel representing for respondent No.5.

3. The revision petitioner is D.Hr/plaintiff who filed the suit in O.S.No.111 of 1987 for realization of the money based on a mortgage. The preliminary decree in the suit was passed on 21.08.1996 and the final decree was passed on 12.03.2003. Thereafter, the execution petition was filed for realization of the decreetal amount by sale of B marked schedule property in the first instance and if the total amount is not realized, for sale of A schedule property. The J.Dr appeared on 10.04.2019, the execution Court ordered proclamation and sale on 06.06.2019 by publishing the notice in Andhra Jyothi daily newspaper and directed to call the matter on 13.6.2019. On 06.06.2019, the publication was filed, but as the bidders were not present, at request of D.Hr’s counsel, the matter was adjourned to 11.6.2019 on payment of continuation beta. Subsequently, the matter was adjourned from time to time since part payments were made by J.Dr till 25.03.2020, on which date the matter was adjourned to 27.03.2020 directing publication of the sale without fresh proclamation and publication by allowing petition under Order XXI Rule 69 CPC. However, on 27.3.2020 in view of notification of the High Court in ROC No.192/SO/2020 in the wake of Covid-19, the case was adjourned to 16.04.2020. Again the matter went on adjourned from time to time on the same ground till 30.11.2020. Even subsequently, the matter underwent several adjournments till 25.11.2021 on which day, the matter was adjourned to 08.12.2021 for payment of balance amount. On 08.12.2021, the execution Court recorded that a calculation memo was filed and adjourned the case to 20.12.2021 for payment of balance amount. Since the Presiding Officer was on leave on 20.12.2021, the matter was reposted to 05.01.2022.

4. On 05.01.2022 the execution Court recorded as follows:-

“Heard. As per the docket, this E.P. was filed for sale and publication is ordered. As per the docket order dated 10.04.2019 settlement of terms proclamation and sale, call on

07.01.2022."

5. Thus, the matter was adjourned from 05.01.2022 to 07.01.2022 i.e., for two days ordering proclamation of sale. However, on 07.01.2022, the execution petition was dismissed, since the proclamation of the sale was not filed.

The order reads as follows:-

“proclamation not filed. Hence, this petition is dismissed”.

6. Having been aggrieved by the order, this revision petition is filed by the D.Hr.

7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that initially the proclamation of sale as ordered was filed into Court on 06.06.2019 and the same was recorded and later the matter was adjourned from time to time dispensing with fresh proclamation of sale and publication on petitions, but suddenly by giving time for just two days from 05.01.2022 to 07.01.2022, the execution Petition was dismissed, for not filing proclamation of sale. In this regard, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted as per Order 21, Rule 68 CPC, a minimum time of 15 days is required for making publication of sale, however, the execution Court erroneously gave only two days time and dismissed the petition for want of filing of the proclamation and therefore, the order in the revision is erroneous on its face. He further submitted that generally it requires 30 to 40 days time for ordering new or fresh proclamation and sale and therefore, the impugned order may be set aside.

8. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner coul