The executing court is not bound to fix an upset price under Order 21, Rule 66(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

( 1 ) THIS appeal by a judgment-debtor gives rise to a short question of procedural law as to whether the executing court is bound to fix an upset price under Order 21, Rule 66 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

( 2 ) IN order to appreciate the scope of the question, it is necessary to briefly state the material facts which are not in dispute and which lie in short compass; The 1st respondent obtained a money decree in O. S. No. 110 of 1969 for a sum of about Rs. 49,500. 00 on 22/04/1970 against the appellant and the respondents Nos. 2 and 3. In execution of the decree, "a" and "b" schedule properties were sought to be sold. The values furnished by the appellant and the decree holder in respect of the "a" schedule property are Rs. 1,20,000. 00 and Rs. 25,000. 00 respectively. The court Amin valued the same at Rs. 40,000. 00. The aforesaid values have been given in the sale proclamation. The request of the appellant to fix an upset price in view of the great disparity between the values given by him and decree-holder was rejected by the court which directed the sale of the property. Aggrieved by that order, the appellant preferred this appeal.

( 3 ) MISS. V. Lakshmi Devi , the learned counsel for the appellant, relying upon the decision of the Madras High court in Arunachala Thammal v. T. Kanagasabathi Pillai, AIR 1955 Mad 720, contends that the court should fix upset price of the property in view of the wide disparity between the values given by her client and the decree-holder. This plea of the appellant has been resisted by Mr. N. C. V. Ramanujachari, the learned counsel for the decree holder, contending inter alia that the appeal is not maintainable. In reply, the appellants counsel prayed for the conversion of the appeal into a civil revision petition in case this court uphold the preliminary objection relating to the maintainability of the appeal raised by the respondent.

( 4 ) ON the facts and in the circumstances and upon the respective contentions of the parties, the following three questions arise for our decision:- 1 ). Whether the impugned order is or is not appelable? 2 ). If question No. 1 is answered in the negative, whether the appeal can be converted into a civil Revision Petition? 3 ). Whether the order of the court below is liable to be set aside on the ground of its failure to fix upset price in view of the wide disparity between the values given by the judgment-debtors and the decree holder in respect of the "a" schedule property sought to be sold in Court Auction?

( 5 ) WE shall first take up the questions No. 1 and 2 which can be conveniently disposed together. The request of the judgment-debtor to fix an upset price has been rejected by the lower court. The impugned order, therefore, pertains to the refusal of the court to fix an upset price for the "a" schedule property sought to be sold in execution of the decree. The fixation of an upset price or refusal to do so by the executing court is not a judicial act done in execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree within the meaning of section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Nor does it relate to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree. It is only such of the questions arising between the parties to the suit which relate to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree that can be determined by the executing court. Hence, we are of the view that the question decided by the court below does not relate either to execution , discharge, or satisfaction of a decree. We, therefore, hold that the appeal in the instant case is incompetent. (See Raghunatharaju v. , (1965) 2 Andh WR 481 ).

( 6 ) IT is well settled that this court, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has ample power and jurisdiction to suo motu call for the record of any case which has been decided by any court subordinate to this court and in which no appeal lies thereto. This Court can entertain a civil revision petition if there is an err