Judgment :- 1. This revision is directed against an order in E.A. 181 of 1986 in E.P. 163 of 1984 in O.S. 371 of 1979 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Trichirapalli, granting leave to the decree-holder to bid at the auction. 2. Shorn of all unnecessary details, the case of the revision petitioners-judgment-debtors is that leave ought not to have been granted even on the first occasion. Per contra , it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that the judgment-debtors have been postponing the sale by making payments in small amounts on nine occasions and the executing Court taking all these into consideration has granted leave to the decree holder to bid even on the first occasion. Normally speaking, leave should mot be granted on the first occasion, because the court should have an opportunity to know the facts about the nature of the bid and the value of the property which would enable it to decide whether it should grant permission to the decree holder to bid and set off or not. If for example there are no bidders on the first occasion, then it would be a ground for considering whether the decree-holder should be granted leave to bid and set off. The Court had no opportunity to consider in this case the adequacy of the upset price fixed as it was the first occasion. The order is therefore not correct and has to be set aside and is hereby set aside. The proper course under such circumstances is to remit the matter for a de novo enquiry. 3. The revision is allowed. The order is set aside. The court below will hold de novo enquiry into the contentions of the judgment-debtors and dispose of the execution petition expeditiously. There will be no order as to costs.