An execution court is obligated to sell only such portion of the property as is necessary to satisfy the decree, and selling the entire property without examining this aspect is illegal and without jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT

ORDER

1. This revision, under Section 115 CPC, is preferred against the order, dated 10.04.2018, passed in E.P.No.160 of 2011 in O.S.No.189 of 2009 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Markapur, terminating the execution petition by recording full satisfaction and directing issuance of challan for Rs.56,100/-towards NJ stamps.

2. Heard Sri Sadu Rajeswara Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner. Though the 1st respondent/DHr has entered appearance, there is no representation. The 2nd respondent has been impleaded vide orders, dated 04.10.2018, of this Court passed in I.A.No.3 of 2018. Though notice was served on the 2nd respondent/auction purchaser, who was subsequently impleaded, no appearance has been made.

3. The suit is filed by the 1st respondent/Decree Holder/plaintiff for realization of Rs.77,172.60 paise basing on a registered mortgage deed, dated 22.05.2006, borrowing an amount of Rs.50,000/- repayable with interest @ 18% per annum and for suit costs. Though the defendant has initially made appearance through a counsel, the suit was decreed ex parte, on 15.09.2009, for a sum of Rs.77,172.60 paise with subsequent interest @ 12% per annum on Rs.50,000/- from the date of suit till the date of decree and with further interest @ 6% per annum thereon granting three months time for redemption.

(b) The plaintiff filed E.P.No.160 of 2011 for realization of the decreed amount by putting the following schedule of property of Ac.5.00 cents of land for sale, as per Order XXI Rule 64 to 66 CPC for realization of Rs.90,024/- with further interest as per the decree and EP costs.

East	:	Sk. Abdul Rahman's land
South	:	Sirasanagundla Narayana's land
West	:	Land of Mandati Tirupathi Reddy
North	:	Land of Mandati Anantaiah'

(c) The defendant/JDr filed counter opposing the execution proceedings stating that he is a Telugu Lecturer in S.V.K.P College, Markapur, and drawing a salary of Rs.70,000/- per month and the DHr is also a retired lecturer in Physics in the same college and that the DHr wantonly filed this execution petition for sale of the EP schedule property to harass the respondent to bring down his reputation in the eye of the public and his colleagues and further expressing willingness to pay Rs.10,000/- per month to discharge the decretal debt commencing from 05th January, 2016.

(d) The revision petitioner/JDr filed a copy of the part-satisfaction memo, dated 14.10.2016, filed by the counsel for the DHr acknowledging receipt of Rs.10,000/-.

(e) Thereafter, the JDr did not fully satisfy the decree and allowed the sale to be proceeded with. Initially, the petition schedule property was put to sale through public auction and the 2nd respondent herein, by name, Yamanuri Sambasiva Rao, was the highest bidder for Rs.9,35,000/- in the sale held on 09.02.2018. The auction purchaser deposited 1/4th of the sale amount on the same day and an amount of Rs.28,095/- was collected towards poundage out of the 1/4th sale consideration of Rs.2,33,750/- The balance 3/4th of the sale proceeds for an amount of Rs.7,01,250/-was deposited by the auction purchaser on 23.02.2018. The JDr did not file any petition to set aside the same nor was there any order of stay for confirmation of sale, as per the observations of the execution Court in the order impugned in the revision. Hence, the execution Court confirmed the sale, recorded full satisfaction and terminated the execution petition; vide its order, dated 10.04.2018, which is impugned in this revision. The execution Court further directed issuance of challan for producing NJ stamps.

4. Without challenging the sale before the execution Court, the revision petitioner/JDr filed this petition mainly contending that the EP schedule property values more than Rs.1 crore, but the same was put to sale in auction for Rs.9,35,000/- only and that since the revision petitioner is a lecturer drawing salary of Rs.70,000/- per month, the execution Court erred in passing the impugned o