ORDER

1. This appeal is against the order of the High Court dated 4-11-1993 whereunder the objections filed by the appellants, under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code, have been dismissed. It must be mentioned that the appellants had earlier also filed objections under Order 21 Rule 90 which had also been dismissed.

2. In our view, the High Court has rightly not accepted all the other objections which had been filed by the appellants. However, one objection which needed serious consideration was that before selling the property, the executing court had not considered whether sale of only a part of the property would be sufficient to meet the decretal debt of approximately Rs 8000. The property sold is one acre of agricultural land. It appears to have been sold off for a paltry sum of Rs 1500 plus a prior mortgage debt of Rs 7000. We had called for the proceedings of the executing court and have gone through the same. We find that, at no stage, the executing court considered whether a sale of only a part of the property would be sufficient to meet the decretal debt.

3. In the case of Desh Bandhu Gupta v. N.L. Anand1 it has been held by this Court as follows: (SCC pp. 146-47 & 150, paras 14 & 17)

"14. Proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 17 of Order 21 provides the procedure to receive the application for execution of the decree. In the case of a decree for payment of money, the value of the property attached shall, as nearly as may be, correspond with the amount due under the decree. Rule 64 of Order 21 charges the executing court that it may order attaching of any property to the extent that such portion thereof as may seem necessary to satisfy the decree would be sold. It is also enjoined under sub-rule (2) (a) of Rule 66 of Order 21 that where a part of the property would be sufficient to satisfy the decree the same be sold by public auction. Form 27 of Appendix of the Schedule also directs the court auctioneer to sell so much of the said property as shall realise the sum in the said decree and costs. The Code, therefore, has taken special care charging the duty on the executing court and it has a salutary duty and a legislative mandate to apply its mind before settling the terms of proclamation and satisfy that if part of such property as seems necessary to satisfy the decree should be sold if the sale proceeds or portion thereof is sufficient for payment to the decree-holder or the person entitled under the decree to receive the amount and so much of that property alone should be ordered to be sold in execution. In Ambati Narasayya v. M. Subba Rao2 this Court held that it is the duty cast upon the court under Order 21 Rule 64 to sell only such property or a portion thereof as may be necessary to satisfy the decree. It is a mandate of the legislature which cannot be ignored. Therein for execution of a decree of a sum of Rs 2000 and costs, the appellants 10 acres land was brought to sale which was purchased for a sum of Rs 17,000 subject to discharge of a prior mortgage of Rs 2000. This Court held that without the courts examining whether a portion of the property could be sold, the sale held was not in conformity with the requirement of Order 21 Rule 64 and it was held to be illegal and without jurisdiction. The sale was set aside and the court was directed to put the judgment-debtor in possession of the land and to refund the sale amount to the auction-purchaser. Further direction was given to execute the decree in accordance with law. In Mangal Prasad v. Krishna Kumar Maheshwari3 a shop was sold to realise a decree debt of about Rs 29,000 and the sale price at the auction was rupees one lakh and odd. This Court finding that it is excessive execution, set aside the sale and directed return of the sale amount to the auction-purchaser with interest @ 12%. In Takkaseela Pedda Subba Reddi v. Pujari 9 Padmavathamma4 to recover the decree debt in two decrees, the properties situated in two different villages were brought to sale