57 Supplementary IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Date of pronouncement; 20.12.2025 Uploaded on: 20.12.2025 CM(M) 570/2025 CM(8576/2025 Caveat 2848/2025 MOHAMMAD IQBAL WAGAY ….. Petitioner (s) Through: Mr. Sheikh Imtiyaz, Advocate V/s NAZIR AHMAD THOKAR . ….. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Asif, Advocate. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dhar, Judge ORDER(Oral) 20.12.2025 1. The petitioner has challenged order dated 17.10.2025, passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Shopian whereby a direction has been issued for sale of the property belonging to the petitioner in execution of decree dated 03.07.2024, according to which, judgment debtor/petitioner has to pay an amount of Rs. 35,68,585/- along with costs and interest @ 6%. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned executing court while passing the impugned order, has not followed the procedure prescribed under law inasmuch as no proclamation has been issued in terms of Order XXI Rule 66 of P a g e | 2 CM(M) 570/2025 CM(8576/2025 Caveat 2848/2025 CPC and the learned executing court has not followed the mandate of Order XXI Rule 64 of CPC. 3. If we have a look at the impugned order, it is provided therein that Tehsildar Shopian shall conduct the sale in accordance with provisions contained under Order XXI Rule 64 to 69 of CPC after preparing and publishing sale proclamation specifying all relevant details including date, time and place of auction. It is further stated in the impugned order that the proclamation shall be affixed at a conspicuous place on the property, in the office of Tehsildar and published in local newspaper having sufficient circulation so that the money yielded from the auction of the attached property is paid towards the satisfaction of the decretal amount. 4. From the aforesaid observation of the learned executing court, it is clear that the said court has clearly adhered to the provisions contained in Order XXI Rules 64 to 69 of the code of Civil Procedure. The apprehension of the petitioner is that whole of the sale proceeds of the property shall be paid to the decree holder even if the sale proceeds exceed the decretal amount. In this regard it is to be noted that the learned executing court has clearly indicated in the impugned order that the amount of sale P a g e | 3 CM(M) 570/2025 CM(8576/2025 Caveat 2848/2025 proceeds shall be deposited with the court for appropriation towards satisfaction of the decree meaning thereby that if any excess amount is realized from the salary of the property the same has to be paid to the judgment debtor. 5. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned executing court. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed accordingly. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge SRINAGAR 20.12.2025 Aasif