The execution court must provide reasoned evaluations for property valuations to avoid arbitrary determinations.

This Original Petition is filed by petitioner/defendant for issuing direction to the Sub Court, Pala to reconsider the order dated 17.10.2025 for fixing the upset sales price Rs.20,00,000/- for property of the petitioner in E.P.No.10/2020 in O.S.No.28/2016.

2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent filed the execution case for recovery of money of Rs. 39,92,333/-. The petitioner being the JDR appeared and filed an application for appointing an Advocate Commissioner, and the Advocate Commissioner valued the property at Rs.1,20,00,000/- as per Ext.P2. Subsequently, the decree holder filed an application for appointing a valuator, and the execution court appointed the valuator namely, Jose B. Thomas an Engineer, who valued the property as per Ext.P3 at Rs. 48,71,750/-, and the present market value as Rs. 48,70,000/-.

4. However, the execution court, vide impugned order, re-fixed the value at Rs. 20,00,000/-. There is no reason assigned by the execution court for reducing the value from Rs. 48,71,750/- fixed by the valuator as per the request made by the decree holder himself by filing the application. The execution court simply stated that the entire property shall be put in auction and Rs. 20,00,000/- is re-fixed. There is no reason or enquiry made by the court below for coming to the said conclusion of re-fixing the value to Rs. 20,00,000/-, reducing it from Rs. 48,70,000/- fixed by the valuator appointed by the court itself, and it should not be forgotten that the Advocate Commissioner had valued the property at Rs. 1,20,00,000/-. Such being the case, the execution court ought to have made an enquiry for fixing the rate and also could have given reasons for reducing the upset price to Rs. 20,00,000/- instead of fixing Rs. 48,71,750/- as fixed by the valuator. Therefore, the order under challenge is patently illegal and calls for interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India .

Accordingly, the order under challenge is liable to be set aside. The petition is allowed, the order under challenge is set aside, and the matter is remitted back before the execution court to consider afresh by considering the report of the Advocate Commissioner as well as the valuer and proceed in accordance with law.