THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.5015 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner filed O.S.No.329 of 2003 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur against the 1st respondent for the relief of recovery of amount. An order of attachment before judgment was obtained against an item of immovable property. The suit was decreed ex parte on 18.12.2003. The petitioner filed E.P.No.323 of 2004. The executing Court conducted the auction on 01.09.2006 and the 2nd respondent emerged as the highest bidder. The sale was confirmed in his favour on 01.11.2006. At that stage, the 1st respondent filed E.A.No.5 of 2007 under Section 47 C.P.C. with a prayer to set aside the sale. He contended that (a) the notice in the auction proceedings was not served upon him; (b) the auction of the property was conducted at Proddatur, though it is situated in a different Village and (c) that the value of the property was not properly mentioned. The E.A. was opposed by the petitioner herein. Through its order, dated 09.04.2009, the executing Court allowed the E.A. Hence, this revision. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Though the 1st respondent is served with notice, he has not chosen to enter appearance. The property in question was attached during the pendency of the suit itself. After the decree became final, the petitioner initiated proceedings for sale of the property. The auction was held and the 2nd respondent emerged as the highest bidder. The 1st respondent came forward with an application under Section 47 C.P.C. alleging three defects in the auction proceedings, which are mentioned above. The trial Court found that such defects in fact crept into the matter and accordingly set aside the same. The defects pointed out by the 1st respondent are indeed substantial. Obviously because the proceedings were taking place ex parte, no objection was taken at the relevant point of time. Once it is brought to the notice of the Court that serious defects crept in, necessary corrective measures need to be taken. The serious defect as to the service of notice virtually stands rectified at this stage, since the 1st respondent is very much before the Court. No prejudice would be caused to the petitioner, in case the auction is conducted once again, duly rectifying the defects pointed out by the 1st respondent. Hence, the civil revision petition is dismissed upholding the order under revision. It is however directed that the executing Court shall proceed with the matter further without the necessity of issuing any fresh notice to the 1st respondent. It shall however put the counsel, who appeared on her behalf on notice and proceed further in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 26.07.2010 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.5015 of 2009 Date: 26.07.2010 JSU