First respondent/D.Hr. who got the immovable property belonging to the revision petitioner attached before judgment filed an execution petition for sale of the property in execution of the decree obtained by him against the revision-petitioner, who, on receipt of sale notice, filed his counter inter alia contending that as the appeal preferred by him against the decree is pending, and since the petition seeking stay of execution filed in that appeal is likely to come up for hearing, further proceedings in the execution petition may be postponed. By the order dated 4-9-2003, the executing Court over-ruled the objections, and posted the execution petition for settlement of terms of sale to 17-9-2003, and thereafter settled the terms of sale and ordered sale of the property attached before judgment. Thereafter revision-petitioner filed EANo.942 of 2003 seeking issuance of fresh proclamation by fixing the upset price of the property to be sold at RS.22,54,800/-, basing on the certificate given by the Sub-Registrar of Assurance regarding the value of the property to be sold in the auction which was dismissed by the order under revision, granting liberty to the revision-petitioner to participate in the auction to be held either by himself or through his agents.

2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the revision-petitioner is that inasmuch as the sale proclamation do not contain valuation of the revision-petitioner/ judgment debtor and as the valuation given by the decree holder is too low, keeping in view Rule 272 of the Civil Rules of Practice, the executing Court ought to have fixed the upset price at RS.22,54,800/-.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for first respondent (decree holder) is that revision-petitioner who did not furnish the valuation of the property in his counter and who did not participate in the settlement of terms of sale, filed the petition only with a view to drag on the execution petition to gain further time.

4. In Edara Pattabhi Srirama v. T. Veerabhadra Appala China Rajanna1 a division bench of this Court held that clauses (e) & (f) of Rule 66 (2) of Order XXI CPC do not require the Court fixing upset price, and that the court is also not empowered to fix any of the amounts indicated either by the decree-holder or the judgment debtor as the upset prices, and deprecated the practice of fixing the upset price by the Court and held that the prices mentioned by the judgment debtor and decree holder have to be mentioned in the sale proclamation. In view thereof, question of the executing Court fixing upset price does not arise.

5. Rule 272 of the Civil Rules of Practice relied on by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner relates to the terms being imposed on the decree holder if and when he seeks permission to participate in the bid. So, that Rule has no relevance for disposal of this case because first respondent did not file an application seeking leave of the Court to participate in the auction.

6. Revision-petitioner admittedly did not mention the value of the attached property which is to be brought to sale in the counter filed by him, and did not also participate in the settlement of terms of sale. When the revision petitioner did not mention the valuation of the property being brought to sale and did not also participate in the settlement of terms of sale, he cannot expect his valuation of the property, being noted in the sale proclamation. In view of the ratio in Edara Pattabhi Srirama case question of fixing the upset price by the Court does not arise and hence I find no merits in this revision.

7. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed with-costs.