( 1 ) FIXATION of the upset price in the sale proceedings by the Senior Civil judge Adoni, with no reference to the estimation given either by the judgment-debtor or the Amin of the Court, is under challenge in this Civil Revision Petition.

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

( 3 ) THE house of the judgment-debtor had been brought to sale. During the sale proceedings, it appears that the judgmentdebtor valued his house, which is brought to sale, at Rs. 15,00,000. 00, the Amin of the court estimated the same At Rs. 12,00,000. 00 whereas the decree-holder estimated the same at Rs. 8,00,000. 00. Without taking into account the valuation of the house made by the judgment-debtor, the Court below had accepted the valuation made by the decreeholder and accordingly fixed the upset price at Rs. 8,00,000. 00. Hence, the present Civil revision Petition.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the State amendment to Order 21, Rule 66 of the Code of Civil procedure, the original clause e was converted as f and clause e was newly framed.

( 5 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the respondent.

( 6 ) IT is necessary to have a glance at newly framed clause e of Order 21, Rule 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which is as under:"value of the property as stated (i) by the decree-holder and (ii) by the judgmentdebtor. "6a. The above amendment indicates that the price should be fixed by the Court as estimated by the decree-holder and also the judgment-debtor. In other words, the estimation of both the the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor shall be indicated to the prospective purchaser. The Court cannot estimate on its own, particularly fixing the price as estimated by the decree-holder. It may put the judgment-debtor in a disadvantageous position. Normally when the property was estimated at a particular price the purchaser depending upon his need, capacity and the willingness may estimate the value of the property, brought to sale, on his own. Therefore, the best Judge to estimate the value of the property is the prospective purchaser. It is not desirable for the courts to arrive at a particular figure on its own, particularly as quoted by the decree-holder, which is a figure on the much lower side than the figure quoted by the Judgment-debtor. Therefore, it is always desirable for the Courts to indicate the nature of the property including the surroundings etc. and also indicating the rates quoted by the judgment-debtor and the decree-holder and leave the rest to the purchaser.

( 7 ) IN similar circumstances, in Gajadhar prasad v. Bhakta Ratan, AIR 1973 SC 2593, the Supreme Court had observed as under:"we think that the duty to consider what particulars should be inserted in the sale proclamation and how the sale ought to be conducted should be performed judicially and reasonably. If the execution Court does not, as it did not in the case before us, apply its mind or give any consideration whatsoever to the objections of the judgment-debtor, we think a material irregularity would be committed by the execution Court. It is not necessary for the execution Court to order the insertion of a judicially passed order in the sale proclamation itself, but, it should pass an order showing that it applied its mind to the need for determining all the essential particulars, which would reasonably be looked for by a purchaser, and which should be inserted in the sale proclamation. The order should show that it considered the objections, if any, of the decree holders or the judgment-debtors, as the case may be. It should not merely accept unhesitatingly the ipse dixit of one side. We think that the execution Court had not performed its duty fairly and reasonably in this case. After embarking on the difficult task of valuation, it rejected the judgment-debtors figures by merely observing that they are exaggerated and practically accepted without hesitation whatever t