This civil miscellaneous appeal, under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is directed against an order and decree made in E.A. No. 609 of 2002 in E.P. No. 51 of 1997 in O.S. No. 87 of 1990, dated 6.7.2005, on the file of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, whereunder the petition filed under Sections 94(e), 51 and Order 21 Rule 90 CPC, by the judgment-debtor against decree-holder/ auction purchaser, praying to set aside the sale held on 4.10.2002 in respect of the E.P. Schedule property, was allowed setting aside the sale held on 4.10.2001.

2. Appellant is the auction purchaser and 2nd respondent in E.A. No. 609 of 2002. 1st respondent is the judgment-debtor and 2nd respondent is the decree-holder.

3. It appears, 1st respondent herein laid suit in O.S. No. 87 of 1990 for recovery of money. The said suit was decreed. When the judgment-debtor did not comply with the decree, decree-holder filed E.P. No. 51 of 1997 for attachment and sale of petition schedule property. Initially, it appears, Court Amin had fixed the value of the petition schedule property at Rs.20.00 lakhs. Subsequently, the decree-holder filed E.A. No. 498 of 2002 seeking reduction of the said amount from Rs.20.00 lakhs to Rs.2.00 lakhs, which was allowed without notice to judgment-debtor and accordingly auction was conducted on 4.10.2002 whereunder the appellant participated and the auction was knocked down in his favour for Rs.3,23,400/-. Immediately thereafter, the present petition - I.A. No. 609 of 2002 was filed by judgment-debtor, seeking to cancel the auction conducted on 4.10.2002, on the ground that, firstly he had no notice before reducing the value of the petition schedule property from Rs.20.00 lakhs to Rs.2.00 lakhs in I.A. No. 498 of 2002 and, secondly, the upset price was fixed basing on the report of the Amin regarding the properties situated at Pothireddipalem panchayat area instead of the value fixed by the Amin on 15.10.1997 with regard to the lands situated at Jangalakandriga village h/o Pedathapoluru village and thereby great injustice and irreparable loss was caused to him. Further, it is not a case where bidders did not turn up for want of reduction of the value of the property, but, straightaway, the decree-holder, who is aware of the fact that the value of the property at the time of test was fixed at Rs.20.00 lakhs on 15.10.1997 and it is true and correct value, with a mala fide intention, filed application on 16.9.2002 seeking to reduce the value of the petition schedule property and the said application was allowed on the same day, without any notice to him, and thereby great injustice and irreparable injury was caused to him, which is opposed to all principles of natural justice. The said application was allowed setting aside the sale conducted on 4.10.2002 by an order dated 6.7.2005 in I.A. No. 609 of 2002, holding as under:

"The Amin never stated in the said schedule whether they have enquired about the rates prevailing in the adjacent lands or enquired the adjacent land holders about the rates prevailing adjacent to the lands of the E.P. Schedule mentioned property. The Amin ought to have filed detailed report as to how himself, the Panchayat Secretary, and other signatories came to the conclusion and fixed at Rs.30,000/- per acre. Therefore, the purpose of issuing warrant for testing the value of the E.P. schedule mentioned property was not properly complied with by the Amin and there is no positive evidence to come to conclusion that the Amin, Panchayat-Secretary, decree-holder and others arrived that Rs.30,000/- per acre was prevailing to the E.P. Schedule mentioned property or to the lands adjacent to the E.P. schedule mentioned property. The Amin filed report on 24.9.2002 and thereafter Panchayat Secretary issued Ex.A-1 on 10.22.2002 fixing the value at the rate of Rs.4,00,000/- per acre. If there is no such rate as per Ex.A-1, the MRO, Muthukur would not have countersigned on the certificate