P RAMACHANDRA REDDY Vs. M RAGHUNATHA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revisions raise a question as to the procedure for sale under Order XXI C.P.C. in suits where there has been attachment before judgment. The question turns up an interpretation of the provisions of Order XXI Rule 54(1A). Rule 66, Order XXXVIII Rule 11 and Rule 11A of C.P.C. The two revisions arise under the following circumstances.

(2.) Two suits O.S.No.119/81 and O.S. 81/80 filed against the petitioners ended in two money decrees. In the former suit the decree-holder filed E.P.No.87/84 and in the latter E.P.No.86/87. In both the suits, a house property was attached before judgment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 and the said attachment became absolute on the date the decrees were passed. Thereafter, the decree-holder filed the two E.Ps. for sale of the property. Notice was issued under Order XXI Rule 66 C.P.C. to the judgment-debtors and the same could not be served as they had gone out of station, on every one of the three occasions when the notices were issued. Ultimately, there was an order of the executing court by which the Judgment- debtors were served by substituted service on 26-9-1986 by way of paper publication in a local newspaper. Though the E.P. was taken up on file, much earlier service under Order XXI Rule 66 C.P.C. could be effected by substitute service only on 26-9-1986. On the same day i.e. 26-9-1986 the judgment-debtors were set ex-parte. Thereafter the judgment-debtor filed E.As. 252/86 and 253/86-for setting aside the orders setting them ex-parte. These E.As. were allowed on 23-2-1987. Thereafter time was granted for filing counter. Counters were filed on 9-3-1987 and the matter was posted for enquiry on 16-4-1987 and the objections raised by the judgment-debtors were over-ruled on 20-4-1987. Thereafter on 23- 6-1987 the matter was posted for settlement of terms. It was at that stage the judgment-debtors filed two separate applications claiming that they are entitled to notice under Order XXI Rule 54(1A) C.P.C. in view of the decision of this Court rendered in T.E.George Vs. Kulapaka Sam- bamurthy (1) 1984 (2) ALT 19.

(3.) It may be noted that in the counters filed by the judgment-debtors, pursuant to the notice under Order XXI Rule 66 C.P.C. after the ex-oarte orders were set aside, they did not raise any question relating to special notice under Order XXI Rule 54(1A) C.P.C. In fact no representation was filed against the order of the Court Dated. 20-4-87 over-ruling the objections. It is only much latter that the present question of notice under Order XXI Rule 54(1A) has been raised.