ABDULLA Vs. SYNDICATE BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When C.M.P. No. 1.289/95 came up for orders, I heard counsel appearing on either side in detail. I am disposing of the revision petition.

(2.) Petitioner is the judgment debtor in O.S .46/89 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kasaragod. That suit was filed by the first respondent bank on the basis of a mortgage executed by the petitioner and others. Mortgage was security for the money transaction with the Bank. When the mortgagors defaulted in repaying the money, Bank instituted the suit. The suit was decreed allowing the Bank to realise the money by the sale of mortgaged property. For getting the decree executed, the Bank filed E.P.27/93. The decree holder brought the property for sale. Proclamation was settled under O.21 R.66 of the C.P.C. At the first instance the upset price was fixed at Rs.2,21,950/-. Subsequently the upset price was reduced to Rs.2 lakhs as per order in E.A.76/94 dated 4-3-94. Still later the upset price was reduced to Rs.1,75,000/- as per the Order in E.A.210/94. It is conceded before me that the property could not be sold in public auction. The decree holder sought permission to purchase the property. Court below allowed the decree holder to bid the property in auction and ordered set off. That order is under challenge.

(3.) Main argument advanced by the learned counsel representing the judgment debtor is that when the mortgagee is to be allowed to bid the property sold in execution of the decree, the court should fix a reserve price. As regards the property mortgaged, if such a reserve price is not fixed under O.21 R.72A, the mortgagee, decree holder cannot be allowed to purchase the property in the auction.