VENUGOPAL REDDIAR Vs. MUTHAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is against the order passed by the District Munsif, Thiruvannamalai, dated 12.8.1988 reducing the upset price in respect of the property which has been brought for sale, to Rs.35,000.

(2.) THE revision petitioner would argue that the property is worth Rs.1,04,000 and the learned District Munsif has reduced the same to Rs.35,000 in an application filed under O.21, Rule 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure without considering the principle to be followed in an application under O.21, Rule 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is also contended by the learned counsel that the decree-holder has filed an application to bid at the auction and it was also allowed and the net result of the order passed by the learned District Munsif would enable the decree-holder to grab the property for a very low price and it has to be set aside in this revision. THE learned counsel appearing for the respondent would on the other hand argue that when the property is brought for sale in execution of a decree and if it is felt that the upset price fixed forthe above property is on the higher side, the executing court is entitled to reduce the upset price and absolutely there is no illegality or irregularity in the order of the court below as laid down in the order passed by this Court in C.R.P. No.3137 of 1988 and therefore, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) IN the instant case, there is nothing on the face of the ordermade by the learned District Munsif which indicates as to the basis or under what circumstances he has determined Rs.35,000 as the upset price. He has fixed the same without bearing the principles laid down in the decision of the Supreme Court and our High Court which I have referred above. The order has to be necessarily held as an arbitrary one and deserves to be set aside.