THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4309 OF 2011 Dated: 17.10.2011 Between : Natti Lakshmi and another … Petitioners And Mrs. Kota Chakrapani Devi … Respondent THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4309 OF 2011 ORDER : Revision petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.75 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the I-Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. The respondent herein/plaintiff filed the said suit for recovery of money. The suit was decreed by Judgment dated 14.08.2006 and pursuant thereto E.P.No.70 of 2011 was filed for sale of the schedule property for realisation of the E.P. amount of Rs.28,36,180/-. By order dated 26.09.2011 the Court below issued sale notice and aggrieved by the same the present Revision Petition is filed by the defendants/judgment-debtors. I have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners as well as the respondent who appeared in person. The material available on record shows that the E.P. schedule property is already under attachment by virtue of the order of attachment before judgment passed pending the suit. The decree- holder initially filed E.P.No.45 of 2006. The said E.P. was contested on the ground that the Court did not have territorial jurisdiction. The objection raised by judgment-debtors was rejected and E.A.No.67 of 2007 was dismissed by the executing court by order dated 12.11.2007. Against the said order, the judgment-debtors filed C.R.P.No.5129 of 2007. The said Revision Petition was disposed of directing the judgment-debtors to deposit Rs.10 lakhs and granting liberty to the decree-holder to take steps to get the decree transferred to the Court having jurisdiction. Thereafter, the judgment-debtors filed another application E.A.No.22 of 2008 to dismiss the execution petition. By order dated 24.04.2008 the executing Court directed the decree-holder to get a clarification from this Court. Against the said order, the decree-holder filed CRP. No.1933 of 2008 and it was dismissed by order dated 10.06.2008. The decree-holder filed review C.M.P.No.3626 of 2008. By order dated 20.03.2009, the review petition was allowed and CRP.No.1933 of 2008 was also allowed and the matter was remitted back to the Court below for disposal on merits. The revision petitioners carried the matter to the Supreme Court and after hearing both the parties Civil Appeal No.1142 of 2011 was allowed by the Supreme Court by order dated 1.2.2011. Having regard to the fact that the order dated 20.12.2007 in CRP.No.5129 of 2009 became final, the Supreme Court held that it was not open to the decree-holder to contend that the issue of jurisdiction was yet to be decided and therefore CRP.No.1933 of 2008 was rightly dismissed. Thus, it was concluded by the Supreme Court that the review petition was erroneously allowed. Accordingly, the Civil Appeal No.1142 of 2011 was allowed by the Supreme Court. Thereafter, in April, 2011, the decree-holder/respondent herein filed a fresh execution petition being E.P.No.70 of 2011 which is the subject-matter of the present revision petition. The claim in E.P.No.70 of 2011 included Rs.10,09,000/- towards decretal amount and Rs.22,91,180/- towards interest apart from Rs.39,872/- towards costs. After deducting Rs.5,84,872/- stated to have been paid by the judgment-debtors towards interest and costs, a sum of Rs.28,36,180/- was sought to be realized. The judgment-debtors/revision petitioners filed a counter-affidavit contending that whereas a sum of Rs.15,84,872/- was deposited by them, it was wrongly shown by the decree-holder that they had paid only a sum of Rs.5,84,872/-. The grievance of the revision petitioners is that without conducting any enquiry as to the amounts actually due and without assigning any reasons the Court below had straightaway issued the sale notice under the order under Revision. Thus it is contended that the said order being contrary to the mandatory provisions of Order 21 Rule 23 (2) of CPC is liable to be set aside on that ground alone. The order under Revision dated 26.09.2011 reads as under: “Decree-holder present. Heard. Issue sale notice and call on 17.10.2011.” As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the said order which is bereft of any reasons indicates that no enquiry was conducted as to the objections raised by the judgment- debtors/revision petitioners in their counter to the execution petition. However, it is contended on behalf of the respondent that in spite of several opportunities given, the judgment-debtors failed to appear and even their counsel was not present on 19.09.2011 and therefore the E.P. was posted to 26.09.2011 and since none appeared for the Judgment-debtors even on 26.09.2011, the Court below had rightly directed sale notice. At the outset, it is to be noticed that the order under Revision does not show that there was no representation for the judgment- debtors on 26.09.2011. In fact the preamble to the order under Revision shows that the said order was passed in the presence of the decree-holder, who appeared in person, and S. Srinivasa Rao, the counsel for the judgment-debtors. Be that as it may, even assuming that the judgment-debtors were not present, since the E.P. claim was opposed by the judgment- debtors by raising an objection as to the calculation of the amounts claimed in the E.P., the Court below ought to have considered the said objection and passed a reasoned order as required under Order 21 Rule 23 (2) of C.P.C. Since the impugned order came to be passed directing sale of the attached property without complying with requirements of Rule 23 (2) of Order 21 of C.P.C. the order under Revision, in my considered opinion, is liable to be set aside on that ground alone. Accordingly, the order under Revision is hereby set aside and the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with a direction to the Court below to dispose of E.P.No.70 of 2011 after considering the objections raised by the judgment-debtors in the counter and pass appropriate orders afresh in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 17.10.2011 KLP