ORDER Varghese Kalliath, J. 1. Advocate Shri Joseph Vellappilli has taken notice for the respondent. I heard the counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the respondent. 2. Petitioners are the judgment debtors in a decree for sale on the basis of a mortgage. The only question that deserves to be considered in this Civil Revision Petition is when once the execution court has fixed a reserve price under R.72A of O.21, and if the mortgagee is unwilling to purchase the property for the reserve price, can the court progressively reduce the price to see that any outside bidders are willing to purchase the property. 3. In this case, initially, the judgment debtors estimated the value of the property to be sold at about Rs. 30 lakhs and the decree holder at Rs. 13 and odd lakhs. In these circumstance, applying R.72A of O.21 the court wanted to fix a reserve price, since the decree holder wanted leave to bid the property in auction. A commission was appointed and the commissioner has given his opinion about the price and he said that the property may fetch a price of Rs. 24,09,000/-. The decree holder filed its objection to the commission report and according to the decree holder, the price found by the commissioner is too high and the decree holder is not willing to purchase the property for that price. The property was put up for sale by the court for two times and no body was ready to bid the property in auction. In these circumstances, the court passed the present order and posted the sale to 26th August. 4. When fixing the reserve price under R.72A of O.21, the execution court has observed that the court cannot compel the decree holder to purchase the property at the reserve price fixed by the court. If there are no bidders to purchase the property at the reserve price, the court has got the power to reduce the reserve price and fix it accordingly. Further, the court said that that question will arise only at the time of the actual sale and so, the court, as an ad hoc measure fixed the reserve price at Rs. 24,09,000/-. 5. Further, the court said that that question will arise only at the time of the actual sale and so, the court, as an ad hoc measure fixed the reserve price at Rs. 24,09,000/-. 5. As I said earlier, two attempts were made for auctioning the property, but there were no bidders and so the court has now passed the impugned order stating that the upset price, meaning thereby the reserve price fixed for the decree schedule properties as per order dated 7-4-1989 will be progressively reduced till it reaches the figures given by the decree holder in the petition. This the court has done relying on a decision, Dr. A. U. Natarajan v. Indian Bank, reported in AIR 1981 Madras 151. 6. I see no jurisdictional error in the order impugned, and so, I cannot interfere with the order. Counsel for the petitioners submitted before me that the actual price of the property is somewhere about 24 lakhs and if the property is sold for the price offered by the decree holder, the judgment debtors will be put to very great loss and this court should give at least some time for the judgment debtors to find out purchasers for this property. In these circumstances, I direct that the sale can be conducted on the same sale proclamation on 26th September, 1989 and if the properties are purchased in court auction by the decree holder, the counsel for the decree holder submitted before me that the sale need not be confirmed for six months and the decree holder is agreeable to set aside the sale in case the judgment debtors offer a higher price. This submission is recorded. CRP is disposed of as above.