( 1 ) THE order, dated 3. 12. 2003 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, kurnool, in E. P. No. 354 of 2002 in O. S. No. 73 of 1994 is hereby challenged.

( 2 ) HEARD the Counsel for the petitioner. The Counsel for the respondent is not present.

( 3 ) THE petitioner is the judgment-debtor and the respondent is the decree-holder.

( 4 ) FOR the sake of convenience, the petitioner and the respondent will be hereafter referred to as "the judgment-debtor and the decree-holder" respectively.

( 5 ) FROM the impugned order, it appears that the sale publication was filed on the date of passing of the impugned order. Both the Counsel representing the decree-holder and judgment-debtor were also present on that day and it appears that the judgment-debtor was willing to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000. 00 and sought for adjournment of the sale. Since the decree-holder did not agree for the same, the Court below proceeded with the sale. It is also pointed out in the impugned order that the E. P. schedule does not contain the market value and the valuation of the officer of the Court was on record as Rs. 2,00,000. 00. Accordingly, the upset price was fixed as Rs. 2,00,000. 00 and o