RAKKAYI AMMAL Vs. MURUGAIYYAN PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition is filed by the plaintiff in o. S. No. 413 of 1974 under section 151, Code of Civil Procedure, against the order of the learned District Munsif, Nagapattinam, dated 30th August, 1980 in e. A. No. 473 of 1980. It is relevant in this connection to note that this application E. A. No. 473 of 1980 had been entertained by the lower court under order 21, rule 72 (A) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said rule reads as follows:' "72-A (1) Notwithstandin g anything contained in Rule 72, a mortgagee of immovable property shall not bid for or purchase property sold in execution of a decree on the mortgage unless the Court grants him leave to bid for or purchase the property. (2) If leave to bid is granted to such mortgagee, then the Court shall fix a reserve price as regards the mortgagee, and unless the court otherwise directs the reserve price shall be' (a) not less than the amount then due for principal, interest and costs in respect of the mortgage if the property is sold in one lot ; and (b) i n the case of any property sold in. lots, not less than such sum as shall appear to the Court to be properly attributable to each lot in relation to the amount then due for principal, interest and costs on the mortgage. (3) In other respects, the provisions of sub-rules (2)and (3) of rule 72, shall apply in relation to purchase by the decree-holder under that rule. "

(2.) IT is seen from the records that on 29th April, 1980 in E. A. No. 144 of 1980 the reserve price was fixed at Rs. 20,000. IT is also seen that, on that, the plaintiff did not bid. In the counter that was filed by the first defendant to this application E. A. No. 473 of 1980 in E. P. No. 133 of 1979, several contentions were raised including the contention to the following effect, namely, the land under reference would normally fetch more than Rs. 20 per kuli i. e. Rs. 60 per cent, and that the price quoted by the first defendant is the reasonable and moderate price prevailing in the village and that the land under reference is having assured irrigation and it is under double crop cultivation. IT is further Stated in the counter filed by the 1st defendant that it consists in single continuous block and the lands were capable of fetching more price. The plaintiff has wantonly brought the large extent of 4. 70 acres worth Rs. 18,000 for sale, is another contention that has been imbeded in the counter filed on behalf of the first respondent before the lower Court in E. A. No. 473 of 1980 in E. P. No. 133 of 1979. IT is also contended that the plaintiff ought to have apportioned the lands in lots to realise her suit amount instead of bringing large extent of property for low price to cause inconvenience and difficulties to the first defendant. In the lower Court, R. 2 to R. 5 absented themselve s and they were set ex parte in this application E. A. No. 473 of 1980 on 5th august, 1980. The petition was heard on 30th August, 1980 and it was disposed of on that date itself. IT was observed by the lower Court in its order which is under revision that as per order in E. A. No. 144 of 1980, the decree-holder was permitted to bid at the auction and reserve price was also fixed at Rs. 20, 000 and so the plaintiff has no right to ask to reduce the reserve price according to her convenience.