B KISHAN LAL Vs. S B H

JUDGEMENT

(1.) No representation for the respondent and even on the last adjournment also.

(2.) The grievance of the revision petitioners is that no notice has been ordered to be given to the judgment-debtor before the proclamation and for settlement of terms etc. as envisaged under Order 21, Rule 66 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Along with the revision petition a certified copy of the docket sheet proceedings has been filed. A perusal of the said proceedings sheet shows that on 22-7-1996 process was shown to have been returned and as sale papers had not been submitted, the Execution Petition was ordered to be called on 11-9-1996. Thereafter the subsequent proceedings on the docket do not disclose any order of the lower Court for issuing process to the judgment-debtor. The docket sheet proceedings further show that on 23-4-1997 sale papers filed were checked and found in order. Therefore, the lower Court ordered proclamation in Deccan Chronicle News Paper and sale to be conducted on 12-6-1997. This order is assailed in this revision.

(3.) From the above docket sheet proceedings it is obvious that no notice has been issued to the judgment-debtor before the proclamation. Order 21, Rule 66 (2) C.P.C. mandates that such proclamation shall be drawn up after notice to the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor. For better understanding in the matter, Order 21, Rule 66 C.P.C. may be extracted hereunder insofar as it is relevant. It reads as follows:-