KARRI VENKATA REDDI Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the judgment debtor. Item I of the E.P. Schedule property is a house situated in Maharampet, Visakhapatnam. For the sale of that house in execution attachment was ordered under Section 46 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the file was transmitted to the Court at Visakhapatnam and attachment was effected on 12-1-1986. One of the objection raised was that if the property is sold at Rajahmundry, where the execution proceedings are going on no proper bidder would come forward to participate in the bid. Therefore, the proper course would be to direct the court at Visakhapatnam to auction Item 1 of the E.P. Schedule property in an open auction so that a number of bidders would participate and higher price would be fetched. Without- considering this objection and overruling the other objections, the Lower Court dismissed the application, as against which the present revision petition has been filed.

(2.) The contention of Sri Lakshmana Sarma, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that once the property is attached under Section 46 of the C.P.C. the court at Visakhapatnam gets jurisdiction and in the interest of justice and equity the lover Court may be directed to sell the property at auction at Visakhapatnam instead of conducting the auction at Rajahmundry. Therefore, the court below has committed a grievous error of jurisdiction in not considering this objection.

(3.) Mr. Bhaskara Rao, the learned counsel for the respondent, has raised a twofold contention. Firstly, once the attachment was effected on 12-1-1986 unless it is extended by a specific order of the Court, the attachment' would cease after the expiry of 60 days, and therefore, the court at Visakhapatnam has no jurisdiction to conduct the auction. Secondly it is contended that there is no prohibition to conduct the auction at Rajahmundry where the execution proceedings are going on.