T.E. GEORGE Vs. KULAPAKA SAMBAMURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A question relating to the application of the new provision introduced in Order 21. Rule 54(1A) CPC arises in this revision. The petitioner in this revision petition is the judgment -debtor. He filed an application EA No. 440/1983 under section 47, CPC in EP No. 178/82 in OS No. 1425/80 in the Court of the District Munsif, Visakhapatnam. The relief claimed in that application was for estimating and mentioning the market value of the EP schedule property before the same was put to safe. The property was a building in Visakhapatnam town in an extent of about 300 square yards and it is a terraced building. The amount due under the execution petition is Rs. 10,233 -75. On 18 -4 -1983 the Court below rejected the application filed by the judgment -debtor for valuation of the property and proceeded with the sale. This revision is directed against the order refusing to value the property and state the judgment -debtor's value in the sale proclamation. In other words the contention is that only in case where the judgment -debtor is given a notice under Order 21, Rule 54(1A), CPC can the decree -holder or auction purchaser invoke the provisions of the proviso to Order 21, Rule 66(2), CPC. It is contended here and in the EA that the value of the site itself is about Rs. 1.20 lakhs and the superstructure costs Rs. 8 lakhs i.e., in all Rs. 4.20 lakhs.

(2.) ON the other hand it is contended by Sri S. Venkata Reddy, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent that the petitioner was given due notice as required by Order 21, Rule 54(1A), CPC and that the present application by the judgment -debtor was belated and that the lower Court was right in rejecting the EA.

(3.) THE only question that falls for consideration in this revision is: whether the provisions of Order 21 Rule 54(1A) CPC have been complied with and whether the judgment -debtor is precluded from mentioning his valuation of the property subsequently and before the sale is held.