The unsuccessful judgment-debtor in E.A.No.201 of 2005 in E.P.No.65 of 1995 in O.S.No.23 of 1989 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kavali, is the present revision petitioner. The decree-holder is the respondent.

2. Respondent-decree-holder filed an application E.A.No.201 of 2005 aforesaid under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter in short referred to as 'the Code' for the purpose of convenience) to reduce the upset price. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Kavali, having formulated the point for consideration at para 5 after recording reasons and after referring to certain decisions, came to the conclusion that the application to be allowed reducing the sale price to Rs.35.00 lakhs from Rs.50.00 lakhs. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition had been preferred.

3. Sri V. Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel representing the revision petitioner would maintain that the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kavali, had totally erred in reducing the upset price ignoring the earlier order made by the Court dismissing the petitions filed by the respondent/decree-holder praying for reduction of upset price and confirming the value of Amin. The learned counsel also would maintain that the learned Judge also totally erred in ignoring the Sub-Registrar's valuation filed by the judgment-debtor earlier and it ought to have seen the valuation produced earlier accepted by the court. The learned counsel also further would maintain that the measurement shown in the valuation certificate filed by the decree-holder differed from the actual measurements of the E.P. schedule property as shown in the Sub-Registrar certificate produced by the judgment-debtor earlier. The learned counsel also pointed out certain arithmetical errors in the valuation certificate. The counsel also would maintain that the learned Judge is not right in relying upon the certificate issued by the Kavali Municipality in the year 1990 without considering the subsequent valuation certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar in the year 2003. The counsel also pointed out to the subsequent improvements made to the building. Thus, the learned counsel would maintain that the reduction of valuation suo motu from Rs.55.00 lakhs to Rs.50.00 lakhs even without a formal application and further reducing the same to Rs.35.00 lakhs definitely cannot be sustained. The counsel also would maintain that the executing court also failed to take into consideration the order dated 07.7.2004 made in E.A.No.138 of 2003 ordering the test of the property and fixation of the value of E.P. schedule property at Rs.55.00 lakhs in pursuance of the said order. Further, the counsel also would maintain that the learned Judge ought to have seen that earlier it had reduced the upset price from Rs.50.00 lakhs to Rs.45.00 lakhs by its order dated 24.02.2003 made in E.A.No.16 of 2003 and further by order dated 07.7.2004 it had dismissed the E.A.No.67 of 2003 filed by the decree-holder praying for reduction of upset price and allowed E.A.No.138 of 2003 filed by the judgment- debtor under Section 47 of the Code to test the E.P. schedule property for estimating the probable and reasonable value by the Court Amin and accordingly the property was valued at Rs.55.00 lakhs. The counsel also pointed out that in the peculiar facts and circumstances while deciding this question at least the Sub-Registrar should have been examined and in the absence of any acceptable material, whatsoever, allowing the application and fixing the price in such an arbitrary fashion cannot be sustained, since the revision petitioner/judgment- debtor would be put to serious loss and prejudice would be caused if the sale to be further proceeded with in the light of the order which is challenged in the present civil revision petition. The learned counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to the language employed in Order XXI Rule 72A and Order XXI Rule 66 of the Code and placed strong reliance on several decis