IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3248 of 2009 Between: Smt.K.Salamma ..... PETITIONER AND Smt.G.Mahalakshmamma .....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3248 of 2009 ORDER: Petitioner is the Judgment Debtor who suffered the decree dated 18.10.2005 in O.S.26/2004 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Puttur for a sum of Rs.1,15,000/- based on a promissory note, vide judgment dated 18.05.2005. As the decree was not satisfied, the Decree Holder/respondent filed E.P.56/2006 and a proclamation was made based on the value given by the Amin for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- After making the proclamation, the petitioner herein filed I.A.243/2008 in the said E.P.56/2006 in O.S.26/2004 to fix the upset price of the E.P.schedule property based either on market value or basic value register issued by the Sub-Registrar, Puttur over the property at the time of conducting sale. The Court below dismissed the said application by the impugned order dated 30.03.2009. Aggrieved by the same, this civil revision petition is filed contending that the dismissal of the said application filed under Or.21 Rule-66 CPC is illegal and unsustainable and the said application was dismissed only on the ground that the petitioner has not raised such objection earlier with regard to upset price. It is stated that merely because the petitioner has failed to raise the said objection earlier, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not entitled to raise any objection with regard to correct value and market value of the schedule property. It is the case of the respondent that the market value of the schedule property is not more than Rs.2,50,000/- and the allegation that the prevailing market value of the schedule property is about Rs.12 lakhs is incorrect. I have perused the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the application for fixing up the upset price based on the market value or based on the basic value register. It is stated that the value of the said E.P. schedule property is only Rs.6,49,000/-as per the basic value register. The Court below dismissed the said application on the ground that when a notice was issued to the petitioner in the E.P. for the sale of the schedule property, she has taken any objection stating that the said property is the railway poramboke and she is a old woman and patient, residing in the said house and there is no other alternative residence for her family, and also she never stated about the market value of the schedule property in her counter. It is stated that counter was filed in the main E.P. on 26.06.2007 and after about 1½ years she has filed the said E.A.243/2008 and filed the basic value certificate. In fact, before filing the said application, on 11.09.2008 and 20.10.2008 proclamations were made and further heard the petitioner on 27.10.2008. Even after proclamation dated 20.10.2008, further promulgation was made on 20.11.2008 and again the petitioner was heard on 27.11.2008 and published in “Eenadu” Telugu daily newspaper. Thereafter only, the present application has been filed. Considering the above facts and circumstances, the Court below dismissed the application. The petitioner was given sufficient opportunity in making proclamation, but in fact, she has not availed the said opportunity and therefore, it cannot be said that the proclamation made by the Court below is illegal and arbitrary. If really the market value of the schedule property is more than Rs.6 lakhs, it is always open for the petitioner to get competitive bidders and see that the said property would fetch with the real market value or make her own arrangements satisfying the decretal amount, avoiding the public auction. I do not see any infirmity legal or otherwise to interfere with the impugned order. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 30.10.2009 Dsr