ORDER :- This C.R.P. is preferred by the decree holder/plaintiff challenging the order in E.A. 28 of 2001 in E.P. 1/99 O.S. 10/1988 dated 18-7-2001 of the Sub-Court, Kottarakkara. That application was filed by the revision petitioner to reduce the reserve price fixed for the sale of property to Rs. 82,489/-.

2. The execution Court dismissed that application. The revision petitioner Bank obtained a decree for realisation of money against the respondents. They filed E.P. 74/92 stating that the amount due under the decree is Rs. 1,54,174.72. The revision petitioner filed E.A. 28 of 2001 for fixing the reserve price for the property. Accordingly the lower Court fixed reserve price at Rs. 1,60,000/-.

3. The respondent/judgment debtor filed C.R.P. 2390 of 1995 before this Court, when the property was put up for sale. This Court directed the execution Court to refix the reserve price considering the circumstances of the case and to sell the property before 31-3-1996. Accordingly, the revision petitioner filed a statement to the effect that the balance decree amount due was Rs. 2,69,618.55 and that amount was accepted as the reserve price.

4. The decree holder/revision petitioner also filed an application before the lower Court for permission to bid at the Court auction which was allowed. Though the property was proclaimed for sale on several occasions, sale did not take place there was no bidders. Hence that E.P. was closed. Subsequently, the above E.P. is filed by the revision petitioner on 2-1-1999. By that time, the decree debt increased to Rs. ,24,897.72. The revision petitioner filed the above E.A. to reduce the upset price to Rs. 82,489/- contending to be the valuation of the property made by the Tahsildar and produced the valuation certificate issued by the Tahsildar.

5. The respondents resisted the application contending that the intention of the revision petitioner is to bid and purchase the plaint schedule property for a song by showing a very meagre reserve price. The lower Court found that the decree holder is not entitled to reduce the reserve price as sought for in view of the provisions of Order XXI, Rule 72A of the C.P.C. as the revision petitioner/mortgagee, is permitted to bid at the sale, the reserve price cannot be less than the amount due as per the mortgage decree.

6. Order XXI, Rule 72A of C.P.C. reads as follows :-

"Mortgage not to bid at sale without the leave of the Court.-

1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 72, a mortgagee of immovable property shall not bid for or purchase property sold in execution of a decree on a mortgage unless the Court grants him leave to bid for or purchase the property.

2) If leave to bid is granted to such mortgagee then the Court shall fix a reserve price as regards the mortgagee, and unless the Court otherwise directs, the reserve price shall be-

a) not less than the amount then due for principal interest and costs in respect of the mortgage if the property is sold in one lot; and

b) in the case of any property sold in lots, not less than such sum as shall appear to the court to be properly attributable to each lot in relation to the amount then due for principal interest and costs on the mortgage.

3) In other respects, the provisions of sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 72 shall apply in relation to purchase by the decree holder under that rule."

7. It cannot be said that once reserve price is fixed by the Court, the same cannot be reduced if there is no bidders or willing purchasers of the property for the reserve price at the auction sale.

8. In the decision reported in Kuruvila Thomas and Co. v. State Bank of Travancore (1989) 2 Ker LJ 485, this Court has held that when the reserve price is fixed under Rule 72A of Order XXI of the Civil P.C. and there are no bidders to purchase the property for the reserve price, at the time of auction, the Court has power to reduce the reserve price and fix it accordingly.

9. In the decision reported in Dr. A.U. Natarajan v. Indian Bank,