GANNAMANTHI PEDDA SUBBAIAH Vs. CHITTEPU NARAYANA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The twin contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M. Venkataramana Reddy, are as hereunder, 1. The learned counsel would submit that prior to proclamation, no opportunity had been given to the revision petitioner-judgment debtor to state his valuation. The learned counsel also would submit that even if the respondent-decree holder is a secured creditor, the official receiver should again be put on notice or should have been impleaded as party to the execution proceedings. On both the grounds, the learned counsel would maintain that the revision petitioner-judgment debtor is bound to succeed in the civil revision petition.

(2.) The present civil revision petition is filed by the revision petitioner-judgment debtorinE.P.No.112 of 2003 in O.S.No. 62 of 2000 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur. This Court ordered notice before admission on 12-8-2005 and also granted interim stay for a limited period. The notice was duly served on respondent-decree holder and none represents the respondent-decree holder.

(3.) As can be seen from the impugned order, the revision petitioner-judgment debtor is aggrieved of ordering proclamation and sale of the petition schedule mortgaged property by publishing in Vaartha daily newspaper of Kadapa Edition. The grounds of objection already had been referred to supra. As can be seen from the counter filed in E.P.112 of 2003 by the judgment debtor, these objections were specifically raised. Respondent herein, the decree holder had obtained a preliminary decree against the revision petitioner-judgment debtor on the strength of a mortgage deed and the same was passed on 27-10-2000 and af inal decree was passed on 28-10-2002. Subsequent thereto, respondent-decree holder filed the present execution petition to bring the petition schedule properties for sale for realization of the decretal amount.