POULOSE Vs. SANKARA VARRIER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This motion is for revision of an order of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Ottapalam, fixing the upset price for an execution sale. According to the petitioner, the estimated value of the property given by the decree holder is very low. Counsel for the respondent says that the value of the property according to the petitioner defendant has also been incorporated in the proclamation. Counsel for the petitioner complains that no enquiry as to the correct value of the property has been made by the Court below. I am afraid no such enquiry is contemplated in law. O.21 R.66(2)(e) CPC. directs "the value of the property as stated (i) by the decree holder and (ii) by the judgment debtor" to be entered in the proclamation. If an enquiry to determine the value of the property is contemplated by law, there cannot be a direction to show the values given by both parties, in the proclamation. The very direction to show both the values is a sure indication that no enquiry on value of the property is to be had in execution.

(2.) In the result, there is no merit in this Civil Revision Petition, which is therefore dismissed, with costs.