The execution court must evaluate requests to reduce upset prices in repeated sale failures to ensure fair execution of judgments.

JUDGMENT

The suit, O.S.No.1110 of 2011 filed by the petitioner before the Second Additional Sub Court, Thrissur for realisation of money was decreed and defendants 1 and 2, the respondents herein, ordered to pay Rs.8,62,162/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of suit till realisation. The petitioner sought realisation of the amount by attachment and sale of the decree scheduled property. Based on the draft sale proclamation execution court fixed the upset price of the property at Rs.58 lakhs. The property scheduled is one- third right of the 1st respondent over Rs.13.325 cents along with the building therein, which is part and parcel of his family property. Though the property was notified for sale four times, the sale did not take place for want of bidders. The repeated request of the petitioner to reduce the upset price went unheeded. The request made through Exhibit P8 application also being rejected by Exhibit P9 order, holding that no sufficient reason is made out for reducing the upset price fixed after taking into consideration all relevant materials, this original petition is filed.

2. Heard the learned counsel on either side.

3. Indisputably, in spite of the property was brought to sale repeatedly and the sale has not materialised for want of bidders. Being so, the execution court ought to have considered the request for reduction of upset price, rather than taking an adamant stand that no reduction is warranted, since the upset price was fixed after taking into consideration all relevant materials. The Second proviso to Order XXI Rule 66 makes it clear that the court is not required to enter its own estimate of the value of the property in the proclamation of sale, but should include the estimate if any, given by either or both of the parties. The sale having been adjourned repeatedly and the decree holder having sought reduction of the upset price, the court is bound to consider the request, subject to the objection, if any raised, of the judgment debtor. The impugned order having been issued without indulging in such exercise, I am compelled to allow the original petition.

In the result, the original petition is allowed. Exhibit P9 order is set aside. The learned Sub Judge is directed to reconsider Exhibit P8 application and pass a reasoned order thereon, within one month of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN, JUDGE

vgs

APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1008/2019 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE DATED 20-06-2013 OF THE SECOND ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, THRISSUR IN O.S NO. 1110/2011 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE E.P NO. 233/2014 IN O.S NO. 1110/2011 DATED 31-03-2014 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DRAFT SALE PROCLAMATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE COURT BELOW BY THE PETITIONER/DECREE HOLDER.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE E.A NO. 25/2016 IN E.P

233/2014 IN O.S NO. 1110/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, THRISSUR DATD

06-01-2016 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN E.A NO. 25/2016 IN E.P 233/2014 IN O.S NO. 1110/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, THRISSUR DATED 23-06-2018.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF E.A NO. 785/2018 E.P 233/2014 IN O.S NO. 1110/2011 DATED 18-09-2018 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, THRISSUR DATED 10-09-2018 EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, THRISSUR DATED 18-09-

2018 IN E.A NO. 785/2018 IN E.P NO.

233/2014 IN O.S NO. 1110/2011 EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF E.A NO. 1110/2019 IN E.P

233/2014 IN O.S NO. 1110/2011 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, THRISSUR DATED 30-

01-2019 EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, THRISSUR IN E.A NO.

110/2019 IN E.P 233/2014 IN O.S NO.

1110/2011 DATED 07-02-2019 EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, THRISSUR IN E.P

233/2014 IN O.S NO. 1110/2011 DATED 07-02-

2019.