Report No. 27

Order XXI, rule 66

1. A recommendation was made in the Fourteenth Report1, that to avoid the difficulties caused by mistakes in the estimated value of the property as stated in the proclamation of sale, the rule should be amended on the lines of the Patna Amendment, so as to provide (in effect) that the court should state merely the estimated value, if any, as given by the parties and insert a statement that it does. not vouch for the accuracy of either. It is considered, that it would be sufficient to adopt the Calcutta Amendment which is more simple. That is what has been proposed on this point.

2. Since a proclamation under rule 54, as proposed2, would have notified to the judgment-debtor the date on which the terms of the proclamation of the sale are to be settled, an amendment is proposed to rule 66 to the effect that in such a case, a fresh notice of that date need not be given to the judgment-debtor, unless the court otherwise directs.

1. 14th Report, Vol. I.

2. See Order 21, rule 54, as proposed.

Order XXI, rule 67

An amendment has been made by the High Court of Madras to this rule, the object of which seems to be to emphasise that rule 67(1) and (2) deals mainly with the mode of publication1.

No such change appears to be necessary, in view of the wording of the rule.

1. See also discussion in Seshageri v. Valambal, AIR 1952 Mad 377 (381, 384) (Satyanarayan Rao and Raghav Rao JJ.).

Order XXI, rule 68

This is in implementation of the Fourteenth Report1-2. The object is to reduce the interval between the proclamation of sale and the actual sale.

1. 14th Report, Vol. I.

2. See also Civil Justice Committee (1924-25) Report, p. 390, para. 22.

Order XXI, rule 69

1. Under rule 69(2), a fresh proclamation of sale is necessary where the sale is adjourned for a longer period than 7 days, unless the judgment-debtor consents. As regards this sub-rule, two changes have been proposed in the Fourteenth Report1:-

(i) The period should be increased from 7 days to 30 days.

(ii) the court should have power to dispense with the consent of the judgment-debtor, where he has failed to attend in answer to the notice issued under Order XXI, rule 66.

2. The object of the amendment on the first point is to dispense with the necessity of a fresh proclamation. Increase of the period will naturally reduce the number of cases in which such proclamation will be required. Similar amendments have been made by the High Courts of Bombay, Calcutta, Punjab, Madras and Andhra Pradesh (all of which substitute 30 days). This has been adopted. (The amendments by Allahabad and Patna substitute 14 days.)

3. As regards the second point, though such an amendment has been made by the High Courts of Allahabad and Patna, it is felt, that the consent of the judgment-debtor should not be dispensed with merely on the ground that he has failed to appear in answer to the notice referred to. He may be present at the time of adjournment and would like to be heard, and this opportunity need not be denied. This recommendation of the Fourteenth Report has not been carried out.

1. 14th Report, Vol. I.