The High Court · 2025

The petition/Appeal coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and the order of lhe High Court order dated made herein and upon hearing the arguments of GUIr/MALLA BHASKER REDDY Advocate for the Petitione(s), R A CHARY Advocate for the Respondent(s) and the Court made the following. ORDER ;a-r_---"-.*- j;:l I l i t HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CM REVISION PETITION No.594 of 2025 ORDER: Heard Sri Gummalla Bhasker Reddy, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri R.A. Chary, learned counsel for respondent.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 o1- the Constitution of India challenging the order dated

31.01.2025 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Karimnagar, in E.P.No.36 of 2023 in O.S.No.70 of 2017.

3. Vide aforesaid order, the learned Executing Court ordered for issuance of proclamation of sale for sale of the attached immovable property by way of tom-tom on

25.02.2025 at 1:30 p.m.

4. Perusal of the record would reveal that respondent has filed the aforesaid suit in O.S.No.70 of 2017, against petltioners for recovery of an amount of Rs.12,00,000/-. The said suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated

29.12,-pW2. Admittedly, petitioners did not prefer any appeal I 2 KL, J C R P.No.594 ot 2025 challenging the said judgment and decree and they have not paid the decretal amount. Therefore, respondent has filed E.P.No.36 of 2023 before the learned Principal District Judge, Karimnagar.

5. In the aforesaid Execution Petition, the schedule property is, rcsidential house bearing No.9-l-266i 1 u'ith RCC roof with ground floor anci l" floor constructed in an area of 385 Sq. yards situated at Bhagathnagar, Karimnagar' The said schedule property was attached by the learned Executing Court. There after, vide inlpugned order dated 31'01'2025, the learned Executing Court ordered for issuance of proclamation of sale for sale of attached property. Challenging the same, petitioners filed the present Civil Revision Petition'

6. According to petitioners, I't petitioner has obtained two loans from State Bank of India (SBI), Tower Circle, Karimnagar, vide loan accounts No.30901649017 and 38127034918 and petitioners' daughter, Ms. Pravalika S, has also obtained another loan vide account No.38031138828' T n 3 KL, J C R.P.No.59a of2O25 2nd petitioner stood as guarantor to the said loans obtained by them from SBI, Tower Circle, Karimnagar' It is the specific contention of petitioners that while obtaining the said loans' petitioners have mortgaged the said property with the Bank by way of executing a registered Deed of Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds bearing document No'6697 of 2009 dated 13.10.2009. It is also the spccific contention of petitioners that the said loans are continuing and the said mortgage with regard to the subject properry is also continuing withtheaforesaidBank.Withoutconsideringthesaidfacts, the learned Executing Court ordered for attachment of the subject property and issued proclamation of sale for sale of the attached ProPertY.

7. It is also relevant to note that 2'd petitioner has filed counterinthesaidE.P.statingthatthesubjectpropertyiS mortgaged with SBI vide registeted Deed of Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds bearing document No'6697 of 2009 dated 13.10.2009 and she is due an amount of Rs'83'44'853/- 4 I(1, J C.R P.No.594 o42025 ln respect of the aforesaid three loan accounts. Without considering the same, the Executing Court has issued the impugned proclamation of sale for sale of attached property.

8. Learned counsel for petitioners has filed copies of statements in support of the aforesaid three loan accounts vide Memo bearing USR.No.2979l dated 17.03.2025. Perusal of the same would reveal that in respect ol tho first loan, petitioners are due an amount of Rs.24,26,404.56 ps. and it was sanctioned on 23.09.2009. No. of EMIs are 279 and No. of due EMIs are 94. Petitioners have paid an amount of Rs.12,11,415.44 ps. and still, the amount due is Rs.24,26,404.56 ps.

9. They have also obtained another loan sanctioned on

14.12.2018 but they have not paid any amount in respect of the said loan. fherefore, they have to pay an amount of Rs.15,55,683.38 ps. to the Bank. Their daughter has obtained another loan and it was sanctioned on 29.10.2018. She has also not paid any amount. She is liable to pay an amount of -l 5 KL' J C.R.P.No.594 ot 2025 Rs.42,08,332l-. Thus, in all, petitioners and their daughter should pay an amount of Rs.81,90,419.94 ps. to the Bank.

10. It is the specific contention of respondent that the market value of the subject property is over and above one Crore' Respondent is entitled for an amount of Rs.27,36,911/- along with pendente lite interest Therefore, respondent will implead the aforesaid SBI as party respondent to the execution proceedings and after conducting auction, on payment of the amount pertaining to the aforesaid three loan accounts, respondent will take the balance amount. If the same is not sufficient, to meet the decretal amount including interest, he will pursue the said Execution Petition or file fresh Execution Petition against the petitioners. I l. As discussed supra, 2nd petitioner is the wife of I't petitioner and she is a Govemment employee' Petitioners and their daughter have obtained the aforesaid loans by mortgaging the subject property. It is also the specific contention of respondent that petitioners had handed over i l I 6 I.iL, J C R. P.No.594 of 2025 original sale deed in respect of some other property towards security. Original is with the respondent even now. Even then, petitioners have sold the said property to third parties. Thus, they have committed criminal breach of trust and they have cheated the respondent. Therefore, he has already lodged a complaint with the police, who in turn registered a case and it is pending.

12. Learncd counsel for petitioners has placed reliance on the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Bhikchand S/o Dhondiram Mutha (Deceased) Through Lrs. r,. Shamabai Dhanraj Gugale (Deceacd) Through Lrs.r wherein the Apex Court while referring to Rule 66(2) of Order XXI CpC held that sale proclamation should mention the estirnated value of the property and such estimated value can also be given under Rule 54 Order XXI CpC. The fact that the Ctourt is also entitled to enter in the proclamation of sale its own estimate of the value of the property clearly demonstrates that whenever the attached immovable property is to be sold in public ' 2024 SCC OnLine sc 929 7 KL, J C R.P No-594 of2O25 auction, the value thereof is required to be estimated' In Rules 54to66ofOrderXXlCPC,thereisnootherprovision requiring assessment of value of the property to be sold in auction. In the said judgment, Apex Court also held that provisions contained in Rule 5a(1) of Order XXI read with Rule 66 of Order XXI CPC say that either whole of the attached property or such portion thereof as may seem necessary to satisfy the decree shall be sold in auction' Ifthere is no valuation of the properfy in the attachment panchanama and there being no separate provision for valuation of the property put to auction, it is to be understood that the valuation of the property mentioned in attachment Panchanama prepared under Rule 54 can always provide the estimated value of the property otherwise the provisions enabling the court to auction only a part of the property which would be sufficient to satisfy the decree would be unworkable or redundant' JI I I ). 8 KL, J ( .R.P.No.591 ot 202s

13. There is no dispute with regard to the procedure laid down under Order XXI CPC and the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Bhikchand (supra)

14. As discussed supra, petitioners specifiQallv contended in the counter filed in the aforesaid E.P. that the subject property is not attachable, which is under mortgage rvith SBI Kaman branch, Karimnagar. Even then, the same was not considered by the learned Executing Court in the irnpugned order. Therefore, the impugned order dated 31.01 .2025 is not on consideration of the aforesaid aspects and the procedure laid down under Order XXI of CPC. The same is liable to be set

15. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 31.01.2025 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Executing Court to decide Execution Petition No.36 of 2023 afresh by following the procedure laid down under Order XXI CPC. Liberty is granted to the respondent to implead SBI, Tower Circle, Karimnagar, in the said E.P. and contend before the 9 KL, J C.R.P.No.594 of2025 learned Executing Court that on complction of auction and on payment of the sale proceeds to SBI towards aforesaid three loans of petitioners and their daughter, he can claim the balance money. If the same is not sufficient, he will proceed with the aforesaid execution proceedings against petitioners or take steps to file fresh Execution Petition in accordance with law. It is for the Executing Court to consider the same

16. With the aforesaid directions, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed To, //TRUE COPY// Sd/.N. SRIHARI DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER 1 . The Principal District Judge, Karimnagar. 2. One CC to SRl. GUMMALLA BHASKER REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. R A CHARY Advocate [OPUC] 4. One spare copy 4l- -,)) a, HIGH COURT DATED:2910412025 ORDER GRP.No.S94 of 2025 DISPOSING OF TIIE CRP ( $- q3 \'\ '',.. ./: 05 AUC 20fr .\.