ORDER
1. The petitioner is the judgment-debtor. Item I of the E.P. Schedule property is a house situated in Maharampet, Visakha-patnam. For the sale of that house in execution attachment was ordered under Section 46 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the file was transmitted to the Court at Visakha-patnam and attachment was effected on 12-1-1986. One of the objection raised was that if the property is sold at Rajahmundry, where the execution proceedings are going on no proper bidder would come forward to ‘participate in the bid. Therefore, the proper course would be to direct the court at Visakhapatnam to auction Item 1 of the E.P. Schedule property in an open auction so that a number of bidders would participate and higher price would be fetched. Without-considering this objection and overruling the other objections, the Lower Court dismissed the application, as against which the present revision petition has been filed.
2. The contention of Sri Lakshmana Sarma, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that once the property is attached under Section 46 of the C.P.C. the court at Visakha-patnam gets jurisdiction and in the interest of justice and equity the lower Court may be
directed to sell the property at auction at Visakhapatnam instead of conducting the auction at Rajahmundry, Therefore, the court below has committed a grievous error of jurisdiction in not considering this objection.
3. Mr. Bhaskara Rao, the learned counsel for the repsondent, has raised a twofold contention. Firstly, once the attachment was effected on 12-1-1986 unless it is extended by a specific order of the Court, the attachment would cease after the expiry of 60 days, and therefore, the court at Visakhapatnam has no . jurisdiction to conduct the auction. Secondly it is contended that there is no prohibition to conduct the auction at Rajahmundry where the execution proceedings are going on.
4. It is true, as rightly contended, that unless the attachment is extended, which expired by efflux of time, they will have no effect of execution proceedings. But it is always open to the decree-holder to file an application afresh and seek extension of the time and for transfer of the file to the court where the property is situated. In these circumstances, in view of the peculiar- facts, I| find that the mere expiry of time of attachment would not take away the jurisdiction of the execuling-court to give such a direction at the request of the plaintiff and to give a direction to the Court at Visakhapatnam to conduct the auction, so that large number of bidders in the locality and the town would participate and thereby a higher price would be fetched in the sale. If the sale is conducted at Rajanrhundry no person knowing the importance and value of the property would come forward and participate in the bid and thereby the judgment-debtor would be in a great disadvantageous position as the property would be sold for a song which render injustice and inequity to the judgment-debtor.
5. Under these circumstances, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the respondent is directed to file an application under Section 46, C.P.C. for attachment afresh and the lower Court is directed to issue precept to the court at Visakhapatnam to conduct auction of Item I of the E.P. Schedule property at
Visakhapatnam and sell the property and transmit the safe proceeds to the court at Rajahmundry to be credited to the E.P.
6. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed but without costs.
7. Petition allowed.
