NARAYAN "UHETTY Vs. PHANAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the judgment of our learned brother, Jeevan Reddy, in A. A.O. No. 707 of 1979, which was preferred by the judgment-debtor, when his petition, E.A.No. 44 of 1978 in E.P.No. 44 of 1976 in O.S.No. 53 of 1974 was dismissed.

(2.) The judgment-debtor filed E. A. No. 44 of 1978 for setting aside the sale under Order 21 Rule 90 C. P. C. His contentions (1) veluetion and that the proclamation of sale did not mention the judgment debtor's valuation and (2) that there is material difference between the valuation given in the publication and the valuation given in the proclamation and hence there is material irregularity committed in the conduct of the sale, are not accepted by the learned single Judge.

(3.) The learned single Judge took the view that the amended sub-rule (2) of Rule 66 of Order 21 C. P. C. does not require that the proclamation should the state value as given by judgment-debtor and that the recond proviso makes it clear' that it is not necessary for the Court to mention its own valuation in the proclamation, but if any value is given by either or both of the parties, it should find a place the rein. He further held that inasmuch as the judgment-debtor did not give his valuation of the property, he cannot complain that his valuation does not find a place in the proclamation and that the sale is, therefors, not vitiated. So holding, the learned single Judge dismissed the appeal, A. A. O. No. 707 of 1979.