NATCHIMUTHU GOUNDER Vs. THAMAYANTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE is absolutely no merit in this revision petition which is directed against an order reducing the upset price fixed for the properties which are brought to sale in execution of the decree. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that fixation of upset price cannot be done at the whims and fancies of the Court and the Court must do it only on proper evidence. Learned counsel places reliance on the judgment in Elumalai Naicker v. Kishtambal Ammal, 1987 T.L.N.J. 220, and draws my attention to the following passage:

(2.) THE ruling in that case has no bearing on the facts of the present case. In this case, upset price was fixed already by the Court and that order was not challenged by the petitioner herein. THE present order that is challenged is one reducing the upset price already fixed, because no bidder came to bid at the auction. THE executing Court is possessed of the records to show that there was no bidder at the auction, for the upset price fixed earlier. Hence, the Court below is fully justified in reducing the upset price. It has not reduced the upset price as prayed for by the decree-holder but has fixed the same in the proper way. Hence, the revision petition has to fail and it is dismissed. No costs.