Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
B. Kishan Lal (Died) And Ors. vs State Bank Of Hyderabad on 27 August, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999(6)ALT55
ORDER T. Ch. Surya Rao, J.
1. No representation for the respondent and even on the last adjournment also.
2. The grievance of the revision petitioners is that no notice has been ordered to be given to the judgment-debtor before the proclamation and for settlement of terms etc. as envisaged under Order 21, Rule 66 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Along with the revision petition a certified copy of the docket sheet proceedings has been filed. A perusal of the said proceedings sheet shows that on 22-7-1996 process was shown to have been returned and as sale papers had not been submitted, the Execution Petition was ordered to be called on 11-9-1996. Thereafter the subsequent proceedings on the docket do not disclose any order of the lower Court for issuing process to the judgment-debtor. The docket sheet proceedings further show that on 23-4-1997 sale papers filed were checked and found in order. Therefore, the lower Court ordered proclamation in Deccan Chronicle News Paper and sale to be conducted on 12-6-1997. This order is assailed in this revision.
3. From the above docket sheet proceedings it is obvious that no notice has been issued to the judgment-debtor before the proclamation. Order 21, Rule 66 (2) C.P.C. mandates that such proclamation shall be drawn up after notice to the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor. For better understanding in the matter, Order 21, Rule 66 C.P.C. may be extracted hereunder insofar as it is relevant. It reads as follows:-
66 (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) ........
(b) .........
(c) .........
(d) ........
(e) ........
Provided that where notice of the date for settling the terms of the proclamation has been given to the judgment-debtor by means of an order under Rule 54, it shall not be necessary to give notice under this rule to the judgment-debtor unless the Court otherwise directs;
4. It has been represented by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners that the property was not attached earlier, since the decree was transferred to the Court of V-Addl. Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for execution. Since the property was ordered to be attached on 20-12-1993 as can be seen from the first proceedings on the docket sheet, the first proviso to Sub-rule (2) is squarely attracted. Therefore, there is no need to issue fresh notice to the judgment-debtor. But before ordering the proclamation the terms are to be settled and inasmuch as the proclamation should contain every detail which is material for the purchaser to know in order to judge the natural value of the property, for which the value of the property as given by the decree-holder as well as the judgment-debtor should be furnished. It is, therefore, necessary before ordering proclamation that there shall be settlement of terms. Even if the judgment-debtor fails to furnish the value of the property, the proclamation can be ordered containing the value of the property as furnished by the decree-holder. But opportunity shall not be denied to the judgment-debtor. Since there is no such step taken by the lower Court as can be seen from the docket sheet proceedings, the order of the lower Court is liable to be set aside.
5. It is represented by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners that proclamation has not been effected so far. It has been further brought to my notice by the learned Counsel that the second judgment-debtor died on 15-11-1995 and his legal representatives filed the present revision. Therefore, the legal representatives of the second judgment-debtor are to be impleaded in the Execution Petition and they shall be given an opportunity to furnish the necessary details for issuing the proclamation.
6. With the above observations, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs.