ORDER :

(The matter is heard through “Video Conferencing/Hybrid Mode”.)

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the judgment and decree dated 19.07.2016 made in A.S.No.30 of 2016 on the file II Additional District Court, Erode, confirming the fair and decretal order dated 28.08.2015 made in E.A.No.56 of 2015 in E.P.No.55 of 2013 in O.S.No.41 of 2012 on the file of the Sub Court, Perundurai.

2. The petitioners are defendants in O.S.No.41 of 2012 on the file of the Sub Court, Perundurai. The 1st respondent filed the said suit for recovery of money based on promissory note. The petitioners filed written statement on 26.08.2011. After contest, the suit was decreed by the judgment and decree dated 24.07.2013. The petitioners did not file any appeal. The 1st respondent filed E.P.No.55 of 2013 to execute the decree to attach and bring the property for attachment and sale of the property. The petitioners entered appearance in the E.P. but, did not file any counter. Subsequently, they were set exparte and property sought to be sold was attached. The 1st respondent filed sale papers and the same was sent to the petitioners. They entered appearance through the same counsel. The Court amin fixed the value of the property at Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs only). The proclamation of the sale was served on the petitioners and property was sold as per the order of the Executing Court. After auction purchase by 2nd respondent, the petitioners filed E.A.No.56 of 2015 in E.P.No.55 of 2013 in O.S.No.41 of 2012, contending to set aside the auction held on 23.01.2015 and to fix the auction price at Rs.13,00,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs only). According to petitioners, the value of the property is more than Rs.13,00,000/- and Court fixed low value of Rs.7,00,000/-. The 2nd respondent by offering Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) more than upset price, purchased the property. According to petitioners, 45 days notice was not given to them before sale after serving notice of sale and prayed for setting aside the sale and fix the upset price of Rs.13,00,000/-. The respondents 1 & 2 filed separate counter affidavits and contended that the Court amin fixed the correct value and the petitioners have not filed any document to show that the value of the property is worth more than Rs.13,00,000/-. The petitioners received sale notice on 23.07.2014 itself and prayed for dismissal of E.A. filed by the petitioners.

3. The learned Judge considering the materials on record, dismissed the E.A.No.56 of 2015.

4. Against the said order of dismissal dated 28.08.2015, the petitioners filed A.S.No.30 of 2016 on the file of the II Additional District Court, Erode.

5. Before the Appellate Court, the 1st respondent and 2nd respondent filed separate written arguments. The learned First Appellate Judge considering the order of the learned Judge passed in E.A., held that the petitioners have not produced any material to substantiate their case that property is worth more than Rs.13,00,000/- and held that Executing Court has followed the correct procedure by adjourning the E.P. by 60 days after auction sale. On these findings, the appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the Appellate Court.

6. Against the said judgment and decree dated 19.07.2016 made in A.S.No.30 of 2016, the petitioners have come out with the present Civil Revision Petition.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the learned Judge erred in ordering sale of entire 41 cents of property worth Rs.13,00,000/- for the realisation of decretal amount to the tune of Rs.2,58,912/-, when the Court amin has fixed the value of the property at Rs.7,00,000/-, which is more than decretal amount and therefore, the sale cannot be allowed beyond decretal amount. The Court can bring only a portion of the property to satisfy the decretal amount as per mandatory provisions of Order XXI Rule 64 & 66 of C.P.C. In view of the irregularities and illegalities, the First Appellate Judge ought to