PATNAM SUBBALAKSHMAMMA Vs. SUNKUGARI SREENIVASA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition presents an occasion to know the subtle distinction between the rights of the judgment debtor in a suit for foreclosure of mortgage, on the one hand, and ordinary money suit, on the other.

(2.) THE 1st respondent filed OS No.83 of 2005 against the petitioner, in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal, for redemption of mortgage. A preliminary decree was passed by the trial Court, on 8.6.2003. It appears that no appeal was filed against the preliminary decree. THE respondent filed IA No. 183 of 2006, for final decree and the same was allowed, on 5.1.2007. Since the petitioner failed to pay the amount, the respondent filed EP No.76 of 2007, for sale of the mortgaged property, being a house with ground and first floors; in Nandyal Town.

(3.) SRI M. Radha Krishna, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that material irregularity had crept into the sale, since the value of the property mentioned by the petitioner herein was not reflected in the proclamation of the sale or the notification. He contends that stipulation of the value furnished by a judgment-debtor, in the sale proclamation is mandatory under Rule 66 of Order 21 C.P.C., as it applies to the State of Andhra Pradesh. He submits that the executing Court has chosen to permit a notification to be published in a totally unknown newspaper, hardly with any circulation and has conducted the sale in the Court premises. Learned Counsel further submits that his client has since deposited the entire decretal amount, in compliance with the interim direction issued by this Court on 30.8.2010, and the same needs to be treated as a step under Rule 5 of Order 34 C.P.C. and in that view of the matter, the sale must be set aside.