INDIRA VENKATASAMY Vs. A HABIBUR REHMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSPITE of service of notice through publication (Substituted service) there is no representation for the respondent. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner.

(2.) THE grievance of the revision petitioner is that the Execution Court in E.P.No.11 of 1999 in O.S.No,9037 of 1995 on the file of the Court of Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu, has not followed the provisions contemplated under Order 21 Rule 84 of CPC since the sale has been adjourned for more than 30 days and without ordering for fresh proclamation, the Execution Court continues to proceed on the same proclamation. THE learned counsel for the revision petitioner also alleges that several complaints against the Execution Court in dealing with E.P.No.11 of 1999 in O.S.No,9037 of 1995.