JUDGMENT

The original petition is filed assailing the order dated 06.04.2022 passed by the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Kottayam in E.P.No.98/2018 in O.S.No.136/2017 (Ext.P12).

2. The petitioners' case, bereft of the exhaustive pleadings, relevant for the determination of this original petition is that; the petitioners and the 2nd respondent are the judgment debtors in the above execution petition, filed by the 1st respondent to execute the award in O.S.No.136/2017. The petitioners and the 2nd respondent had availed financial assistance from the 1st respondent. As they could not repay the loan amount, the 1st respondent instituted the above suit. Ultimately, the parties entered into Ext.P1 compromise and Ext.P2 award was passed by the Lok Adalath. The 1st respondent has put Ext.P2 to execution by filing Ext.P3 execution petition. The 1st respondent had on the basis of Ext.P4 valuation report fixed the value of the mortgaged property at Rs.49,62,200/-. The Execution Court, without any enquiry, accepted Ext.P4 and fixed the upset price of the property at Rs.60,00,000/-. Being aggrieved by the fixation of the upset price, the petitioners filed Ext.P5 application seeking to fix the upset price of the property at Rs.90,00,000/-. The same was objected by the 1st respondent through Ext.P6 objection. Without conducting any enquiry on Ext.P5 application, the Execution Court dismissed the application by Ext.P7 order. The petitioners challenged Ext.P7 order before this Court. This Court by Ext.P8 order directed the Execution Court to reconsider the matter afresh, after affording both sides an opportunity of being heard. The petitioners have filed Ext.P9 detailed objection to Ext.P4 valuation report and have produced Ext.P10 copy of sale deed No.2388/1/2016 of the Additional Sub Registrar Office, Kottayam to point out that the property would get atleast Rs.7,50,000/- per cent. In the meantime, the 1st respondent has filed Ext.P11 application under Order XXI Rule 72 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking leave to bid in the auction. By the impugned Ext.P12 order, the Court below has fixed the upset price of the property at Rs.75,00,000/-. Ext.P12 is erroneous and unjustifiable. The Court below has failed to fix the value of the property, especially in the light of Ext.P10 sale deed.

Hence, the original petition.

3. Heard; Sri.Nandagopal S. Kurup, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.Mathew John, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. Even though, service is complete on the

2nd respondent, there is no appearance for her.

4. Sri.Nandagopal S. Kurup argued that the Execution Court has failed to fix the value of the building situated in the property, even as per Ext.P4 valuation report. At any rate the amount of Rs.75,00,000/- fixed by the Court below as the upset price of the property is on the lower side.

5. Sri.Mathew John on the contrary submitted that the 1st respondent is not interested in the property of the petitioners. It is only because the petitioners have failed to pay the decree debt, that too pursuant to a compromise decree passed nearly five years back, that the 1st respondent is left with no other option, but to bid in the auction. As per Ext.P4 valuation report, the building has a value of Rs.5,00,000/-. It is after considering all the aspects, the accredited valuer has fixed the value of the property at Rs.49,62,200/-. Despite, Ext.P4 report, the Execution Court had fixed the value of the property at Rs.60,00,000/-. Thereafter, pursuant to the orders of this Court in Ext.P8 judgment, the Court below has refixed the market value at Rs.75,00,000/- i.e., the optimum upset price of the property. The petitioners cannot aspire to get anything more than the present upset price. There is no error in Ext.P12 order. Hence, the original petition may be dismissed.

6. The short point that arises for consideration in this original petition is whether the upset price of Rs.75,00,000/- fixe