VENKATAKAMAIYA, CJ. ( 1 ) THE Appellant is the decree-holder whose main grievance is that the lower Court has arbitrarily rejected his application for permission to bid and purchase the properties of the judgment-debtor for a sum of Rs. 16,000, The decree amount for which he is allowed to buy the same is alleged to be very high. The decree was passed by consent on 17-12-1949 and this appears to have been made final in 1952. No payment is made or attempted to be made by the judgment-debtor and sale of the properties has proved infructuous more than once. The last order in the execution case passed on 27-6-1955 was"decree holder by Sri K. P. Immovable properties not sold for want of bidders. Decree-holder was permitted to bid. Sale coming on 5th time. Decree holder absent (which is contrary to the note made at first ). This petition is closed". ( 2 ) IT is contended for the decree-holder that in the absence of any bid and any one coming forward to buy the properties on five occasions, the offer made by decree-holder should be treated as the best and tbat this was bona fide. When attachment of the properties before judgment was applied for by the plaintiff, the estimated value of the properties was mentioned as Rs. 12,000 and the value is repeated in the schedule to the decree passed by consent. The amount claimed in the execution petition is rs. 56,280 and odd and there is no particular reason apparently for compelling the decree-holder to purchase the properties for treble the amount at which he valued them as the judgment-debtor wants him to do, when none else is prepared to offer any price. The judgment-debtor beyond asserting that the properties are very valuable has not placed any material to support it or made any effort to raise money or secure buyers on any terms. ( 3 ) IN the sale proclamation the estimated value is stated to bo less than the decree amount and this was not objected to. It looks as if the persons disposed to buy the properties are kept out to avert the possibility of a sale for less than the decree amount with a view to force the properties on the decree-holder in full discharge of the decree. It looks as if the persons disposed to buy the properties are kept out to avert the possibility of a sale for less than the decree amount with a view to force the properties on the decree-holder in full discharge of the decree. The lower Court has overlooked this and the futility of holding further sales without allowing the decree-holder to offer the bid proposed by Mm. Mr. Veera Setty raised a preliminary objection to the appeal as not being competent on the ground that the order fixing terms on which the decree-holder may purchase the properties is not appealable. He cited Ulaganatha Mudaliar v. M. Alagappa Mudaliar, A. I. R. 1929 Mad. 903 in which the court relying on the observations of the Privy Council in Ko Tha Hnyin v. Ma Hnin, I. L. R. 38 Cal. 717 observed : "an order giving or refuging leave to bid is only a ministerial order and not appealable. " ( 4 ) THE observation of the Privy Council is based on the view expressed by it in Jadunath Mundul v. Brojo Mohan Ghose, I. L. R. 13 Cal. 174 to the effect that no appeal lies from an order passed under section 294 of the Code of Civil Procedure refusing permission to a decree-holder to bid at a sale in execution of his decree. In that case the learned Judges construed the terms of Section 588 cl. (16) of the old Code corresponding to Order 43, Rule 1 Cl. (J) as providing for an appeal against an order confirming or setting aside a sale of immoveable property and not against an order refusing to give a decree-holder permission to bid. As a safeguard against possibility of relief being denied to him on this ground Mr. Subba Rao, learned Counsel for the appellant, has filed an application for converting the appeal into a petition for revision. The appeal cannot be dismissed as it is not merely the propriety of the order on the application of the decree-holder for permission to bid which requires consideration but also the disposal of the execution petition. The lower Court has acted in a mechanical manner while treating this application as closed and arbitrarily in prescribing the decree amount as the price for which the decree-holder may, if at all, buy the properties. The lower Court has acted in a mechanical manner while treating this application as closed and arbitrarily in prescribing the decree amount as the price for which the decree-holder may, if at all, buy the properties. ( 5 ) JUDGMENT debtor's counsel has not suggested any alternative to the grant of the application by adopting which any amount can be expected to be realised without disadvantage to either party. Dealing with application of the decree-holder in a routine manner without taking into account the result of the previous sales has led to the needless prolongation of the proceedings. The question to be considered now is whether the termination of the execution case is justified and if this is brought about by the unreasonable rejection of the decree-holder's request the error has to be set right in the appeal from the dismissal of the execution application. ( 6 ) OTHERWISE, there is no likelihood of a finality to the case. The processes provided for by law, to secure satisfaction of the decree will become ineffective if proceedings are allowed to drift and the court does not apply its mind to regulate these by appropriate orders so that the procedure prescribed is not turned into a weapon for thwarting or frustrating realisation of what is due. ( 7 ) IF there was any reason to doubt the bona fides of the request the court should have called for further information and then determined the amount for which he should be allowed to buy, A situation similar to that in this case arose for consideration in motilal Parsharam v. Fulchand Balaram, A. I. R. 1924 Bom. 515. It appears that at the first sale a property did not fetch a bid of more than rs. 5,000, it was valued by the Panch at Rs. 40,000 and by the judgment-debtor at Rs. 60,000. The decree-holder was permitted to bid not for Rs. 20,000 as prayed for by him but for rs. 40,000 the value fixed by the Panch. The decree-holder declined to raise his bid at the sale subsequently held and the executing Court closed the darkhast. The High Court set aside the order and Fawcett J. observed :" Prima facie the offer of the judgment-creditor to bid up to Rs. 20,000 as prayed for by him but for rs. 40,000 the value fixed by the Panch. The decree-holder declined to raise his bid at the sale subsequently held and the executing Court closed the darkhast. The High Court set aside the order and Fawcett J. observed :" Prima facie the offer of the judgment-creditor to bid up to Rs. 20,000 seems to be a bona fide one ; and I do not think there was any good ground for refusing to allow him to bid unless he was prepared to go up to Rs. 40,000. "shah, acting C. J. , remarked :" There is apparently no reason on the record why decree-holder should not have been granted leave to bid under Rule 72 of Order 21. We set aside the order disposing of the Darkhast ". ( 8 ) IN Raghunatha Rai v. Jatan Ram, A. I. R. 1934 Pat. 345 the statement in badri Sahu v. Peare Lal, A. LR. 1926 Pat. 140 that " There is no provision of law compelling the decree-holder to bid up to any sum that may be fixed by the Court " is quoted with approval. ( 9 ) ON a consideration of all the circumstances of the case I set aside the order of the lower Court closing the application, direct that the properties should be put up for sale after issuing a fresh proclamation setting forth particulars, if any, which the judgment-debtor wants to be included and that the lower court dispose of afresh the application filed by the decree-holder for permission to bid in the light of the above observations. Parties will bear their own costs in this Court. PADMANABHIAH J.- i agree. --- *** --- .