HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3623 OF 2007 DATED 5TH AUGUST, 2010. BETWEEN Sudanagunta Nageswara Rao ….Petitioner and Chintalapudi Ramakrishna and ors ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3623 OF 2007 ORDER: The petitioner, who is a Judgment Debtor No.1 ﬁled this Civil Revision Petition challenging order dated 19.7.2007 passed by the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole, in EA.No.. 236 of 2005 in EA.No.1261 of 2004 in EP.No. 580 of 2002 in O.S.,No. 51 of 1997. Heard both sides. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that sale proclamation notices as required under Order 21 Rule 66 of CPC were not served on the judgment debtors. The Court below by impugned order rejected the plea of the petitioner observing that the judgment debtors ought to have raised all these objections in an application under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC at an appropriate time instead of ﬁling the impugned application under Section 47 CPC, the scope of which is limited and the same is with regard to objections in delivery of property. Having heard the learned Counsel on either side and perused the material on record, it is to be seen that it is the case of the petitioner that a part of the schedule property is enough to clear the decree holders debt, however, the entire suit schedule land was sold and hence, he (judgment debtor) sustained an injury, that too, in absence of service of proclamation of sale notice as required under Order 21 Rule 66 CPC. Though the sale was held on 30.4.2004 the impugned application was ﬁled on 23.2.2005, after lapse of more than nine months. However, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs.55,000/- pursuant to the order dated 20.8.2007 in CRPMP.No. 4745 of 2007 passed by this Court at the stage of admission and it is hardly about Rs.15,000/- is left payable towards decreetal amount, it is more desirable in the interest of justice to give one more opportunity to the petitioner. In that view of the matter the order under revision is set aside and the Court below is directed to dispose of the matter afresh on merits after giving notice to both sides. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs. ---------------------------------------- JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO Dated 5th August, 2010. Msnr.