The main legal point established in the judgment is the obligation imposed on the court to sell only such portion of the property as necessary to satisfy the decree, as mandated by Order XXI Rule 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

( 1 ) CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the judgment passed by a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing the Civil Revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short 'the Constitution') read with Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the 'code' ).

( 2 ) BACKGROUND facts in a nutshell are as follows:

The appellant filed a suit O. S. No. 57/96 against respondent No. 2 for recovery of Rs. 4,49,500/ -. The respondent No. 1 also filed a suit O. S. No. 65/96 against respondent No. 2 for foreclosure of the mortgage in his favour for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ -. Both the suits were pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet. During the pendency of the suit appellant filed IA No. 413/96 for attachment before judgment and same was ordered in terms of order dated 7. 10. 96. OS No. 65/96 filed by respondent No. 1 was decreed against respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 1 filed an execution petition (EP No. 1/99) and sought for sale of mortgaged property as respondent No. 2 did not satisfy the decree. Respondent No. 1 indicated the value of the property to be rupees three lakhs. The bailiff after obtaining information from the Registrar and Municipal Office mentioned value of the property at Rs. 2,55,490/ -. The appellant's suit OS 57/96 was decreed against respondent No. 2. The said respondent No. 2 - judgment debtor was set ex parte as he did not attend the EP proceedings i. e. EP No. 1/99. Proclamation was published in newspaper "eenadu". The matter was adjourned from time to time. Appellant filed execution petition EP No. 19/01 seeking direction for sale of schedule property for realization of the amount of Rs. 5,69,816/- due under the judgment and decree dated 16. 2. 2000 made in OS No. 57/96.

( 3 ) RESPONDENT No. 2 filed an application EA No. 90/01 in EP No. 1/99 under Order XXI Rules 69 read with Sections 47 and 151 of the Code seeking a direction to stop the auction to be held on 12. 11. 2001 and sought for adjournment of the matter for settlement of terms and conditions of sale. Fresh publication and proclamation of sale was made in newspaper namely, Neti Manadesam. Learned Civil Judge dismissed the application EA No. 90/91 in EP No. 1/99 filed by respondent No. 2. The said order was challenged before the High Court in CRP No. 6036/01. Again proclamation of sale was published in 'neti Mandadesham' and the decree holder purchased the property for Rs. 3,12,000/- in OS No. 57/96. Thereafter the appellant filed an application EA No. 42/02 under Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code to aside the sale and to re-auction the schedule property, as the respondent No. 1 has not taken proper steps for wide publicity of the auction. It was stated that the value of the property was not less than rupees six lakhs. Objection was filed by the respondents. The judgment- debtor categorically stated in the counter that the value of the property is more than rupees 8 lakhs. The sale was confirmed on 24. 1. 2002. The High Court dismissed CRP filed by the judgment debtor-respondent No. 1. The appellant filed an application EA No. 107/03 in EA No. 42/02 in EP No. 1/99 to receive the valuation report issued. Learned Civil Judge dismissed the application. The High Court was moved. As noted above the High Court, dismissed the Civil Revision petition being of the view that allegations made in the petition are general in nature, and the affidavit with the petition does not disclose whether objection relates to non publication in the newspaper or places.

( 4 ) IN support of the appeal learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the newspaper in which the publication was made is not a wide circulating newspaper. Further the valuation at which the decree holder purchased is very low. Additionally, it is submitted that in terms of Order XXI Rule 64 of the Code the Court was required to find out whether a part of the property would have sufficed to meet the decr