( 1 ) HEARD both the Counsel.

( 2 ) THIS C. R. P. arises on the execution side on petitioner filing E. A. No. 467/90 before the executing Court. It is stated that the petitioner has suffered an ex parte decree in a sum of Rs. 7,877-20 ps. on the file of the I additional District Munsif Court, Kovvur, dated 29-3-1979. On 15-10-1985, the respondent-decree holder filed E. P. 372/85 for sale of the Judgment- debtor s property for recovery of a sum of Rs. 11,878. 15 ps. , decretal amount plus other charges. On 16-10-1985, Ac. 2. 15 cents of agricultural land owned by the petitioner was attached at Purushottampalli Village, D. Muppavaram mandal. The petitioner-judgment-debtor was served with the notice of attachment on 16-2-1986. Later the petitioner s Advocate filed Vakalat, but no counter was filed. On 11-7-1986 sale papers and encumbrance certificate were filed, and on 17-7-1986 sale papers and encumbrance certificates were checked. Court ordered notice to the petitioner-judgment-debtor and when notice to the petitioner was returned unserved, the executing Court on 11-9-1986 directed fresh notice through Court and registered post with acknowledgement due. On 25-2-1987 Court directed to publish the notice, and on 2-3-1987 notice was published in Radha Krishna Patrika, Bhimavaram. On 25-3-1987 proof of publication was filed and when the petitioner-judgment- debtor was absent, the Court set him ex parte. On 2-4-1987 proclamation of sale was settled and the sale of the property was effected on 24-6-1987.

( 3 ) THE petitioner filed an application under Section 47 r/w. 151 C. P. C. praying to set aside the sale dated 24-6-1987, as it is not in conformity with order 21 Rule 64 and the same is void and without jurisdiction.

( 4 ) THE same was resisted by the respondent and on hearing both the Counsel, the executing Court dismissed the said application as the same is not sustainable in law.

( 5 ) MR. M. V. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that the executing Court erred in dismissing the application of the petitioner on the ground that the Court has committed an error in law. Relying on Order 21 Rule 64 C. P. C. he submits that the Court should not have allowed the entire property (Ac. 2. 25 cents) for sale, a part of the property or even less than one acre should have satisfied the decretal amount and as such, the sale is void and without jurisdiction. He relies on the Apex Court Judgment of two Judges in Ambati Narasayya vs. M. Subba Rao. While dealing with Order 21 Rule 64 C. P. C. their Lordships have held that in an auction sale, the entire property should not be sold, but such portion as would satisfy the decree should be sold and this is obligatory on Court and not just discretion, which is a mandate of legislation which cannot be ignored. In para 7 of the judgment their Lordships have held as under:"it is of importance to notice from this provision that in all execution proceedings, the Court has to first decide whether it is necessary to bring the entire attached property to sale or such portion thereof as may seem necessary to satisfy the decree. If the property is large and the decree to be satisfied is small, the Court must bring only such portion of the property, the proceeds of which would be sufficient to satisfy the claim of the decree holder. It is immaterial whether the property is one or several. Even if the property is one, if a separate portion could be sold without violating any provision of law only such portion of the property should be sold. This, in our opinion, is not just a discretion, but an obligation imposed on the Court. Care must be taken to put only such portion of the property to sale the consideration of which is sufficient to meet the claim in the execution petition. The sale held without examining this aspect and not in conformity with this requirement would be illegal and without jurisdiction. "

( 6 ) RELYING on the above judgment, Mr. M. V. S. Sures