JUDGMENT 1. - This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 35/ 1980 under O. 43 Rule I C.P.C. against the judgment of learned Additional District Judge. Alwar, (Court No. 2), dated Feb. 5, 1980. in Execution Case No. 2/1977, has been filed, whereby the objections of the appellants under O. 21, Rule 90 C.P.C. were dismissed. 2. It will suffice to state for the purposes of this appeal that in a suit filed against the appellants by Ram Gopal Bhawani Bux and others, property of appellant; was attached on January 1, 1918. The suit was decreed for a sum of Rs. 27,819.65 along with interest in the year 1974. An execution application was filed by decree-holders on January 4, 1977 in which two shops of the appellants were auctioned separately for Rs. 40,000/- each on January 2, 1917. 3. The contention of the learned counsel Shri Bafna, appearing for the appellants is that even at the time of auction itself, an objection was raised that since the decreetal amount stood satisfied by the auction of Shop No. 1 only, the Shop No. 2. should not be auctioned. However, the Shop No. 2 was also put to auction. Thereafter objections under Order 21 Rule 90 C.P.C. were filed on February 22, 1977, in which inter alia the above objection was raised. It is contended by the learned counsel that since the Shop No. 1 was auctioned for Rs. 40,000/- it covered the entire decreetal amount mentioned in the proclamation issued by the Executing Court and, therefore, the shop No. 2, should not have been auctioned. 4. Shri H.C. Rastogi learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 3 has nothing to say so far as the auction of Shop No. 2 is concerned since the decreetal amount mentioned in the proclamation stand satisfied from the auction price from the Shop No. 1 itself. 5. I have beard learned both the counsel and also perused the record and documents including the proclamation issued by tuc Executing Court. 5. I have beard learned both the counsel and also perused the record and documents including the proclamation issued by tuc Executing Court. A bare perusal of Order 21 Rule 64 Civil Procedure Code will show that the Court while executing the decree may order that any property be attached and shall be liable to sale either wholly or a portion thereof, as may seem necessary to satisfy the decree under execution The words "as may seem necessary to satisfy the decree" signify that the attached property shall be sold only to the extent which may be found necessary to satisfy the amount of decree as mentioned in the proclamation itself. In this case the drereetal amount was evidently satisfied from the auction of Short No. 1 itself, which was sold for amount of Rs. 40,000/-. Reliance has been placed on the authority of Takkaseela Pedda Subba Reddi Vs Pujari Padmavathamma and others, AIR 1977 SC 1789 , wherein it was held by the Apex Court as under : Under the provisions of O.21. Rule 64. it is manifest that where the amount specified in the proclamation of sale for the recovery of which the sale was ordered is realised by sale of certain items, the sale of further items should be stopped. This is the logical corollary which flows from O.21. R. 64. Under that provision the Executive Court derives jurisdiction to sell properties attached only to the point at which the decree is fully satisfied The words ' necessary to satisfy the decree" clearly indicate that no sale can be allowed beyond the decreetal amount mentioned in the sale proclamation. In other words, where the sale fetches a price equal to or higher than the amount mentioned in the sale proclamation and is sufficient to satisfy the decree, no further sale should be held and the Court should stop at that stage. Where the decree-holder had obtained another decree against the J.D. but there was nothing to show that the decree-holder had approached the Court for including the second decreetal amount in the proclamation of sale, the executing Court was not justified in selling the further item on the ground that the total amount under the two decrees exceeded the amount fetched by the sale of one item. So also, the fact that the J.D. did not raise an objection on that ground before the Executing Court was not sufficient to put him out of Court, because this was a matter which went to the very root of the jurisdiction of the Executing Court to sell the properties and the non-compliance with the provisions of O.21, R. 64 of the Code was sufficient to vitiate the same so far as the other properties were concerned. 6. It is, therefore, clear that no other amounts which may be outstanding against the judgment debtor can be clubbed alongwith execution proceedings and consequent auction of the property of judgment debtor to recover such additional amounts. In the auction of property held under a particular execution proceedings, only such property of the judgment debtor can be auctioned which may satisfy the decreetal amount as mentioned in the proclamation and nothing more. 7. In this view of the matter, the auction regarding Shop No. 2 is set-aside. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the auction of Shop No. 2 is set-aside.No order as to costs.Appeal allowed. *******