Judgment : This revision is against the order passed by the District Munsif, Thiruvannamalai, dated 18. 1988 reducing the upset price in respect of the property which has been brought for sale, to Rs.35,000. 2. The revision petitioner would argue that the property is worth Rs.1,04,000 and the learned District Munsif has reduced the same to Rs.35,000 in an application filed under O.21, Rule 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure without considering the principle to be followed in an application under O.21, Rule 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is also contended by the learned counsel that the decree-holder has filed an application to bid at the auction and it was also allowed and the net result of the order passed by the learned District Munsif would enable the decree-holder to grab the property for a very low price and it has to be set aside in this revision. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would on the other hand argue that when the property is brought for sale in execution of a decree and if it is felt that the upset price fixed forthe above property is on the higher side, the executing court is entitled to reduce the upset price and absolutely there is no illegality or irregularity in the order of the court below as laid down in the order passed by this Court in C.R.P. No.3137 of 1988 and therefore, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 3. It is no doubt true that in the C.R.P. No.3137 of 1988, this Court has held that there is absolutely no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the executing court before whom R.E.A. No.486 of 1988 in R.E.P. No.4 of 1988 in O.S. No.104 of 1985 was filed and dismissed the civil revision petition. But the above order does not show under what circumstances, it has been held in the above civil revision petition that there is absolutely no illegality or irregularity in the order of the court below. Therefore, the order passed in the above civil revision petition cannot be considered as laying down a proposition that there is no illegality or irregularity if the executing court reduced the upset price on an application filed by the judgment-debtor and decree-holder. Therefore, the order passed in the above civil revision petition cannot be considered as laying down a proposition that there is no illegality or irregularity if the executing court reduced the upset price on an application filed by the judgment-debtor and decree-holder. In the decision reported in Gajadhar Prasad v. Babu Bhakta Ratan.A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 2593: (1973)2 S.C.J. 570: (1973)2 S.C.W.R. 289: (1973)2 S.C.C. 629 : 1973 S.C.D. 828. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have considered the provisions of O.21, Rule 66(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure and have held as follows: ‘ ‘Rule 66(2)(e) of O.21 requires the court to state only the relevant facts. Hence, the purchaser should be left to judge the value for himself. But essential facts which may have a bearing on the very material question of value of the property and which would assist the purchaser in forming his own opinion must be stated. That is, after all, the whole of object of O.21, Rule 66(2)(e). In discharging it, the court should normally state the valuation given by both the decree-holder as well as the judgment-debtor where they have both valued the property, and these do not appear fantastic. It may usefully state any other material facts, such as area of land, nature of rights in it, municipal assessment, actual rents realised which could reasonably be expected to affect valuation. What could be reasonably and usefully stated succinctly in a sale proclamation has to be determined on the facts of each particular case. Inflexible rules are not desirable on such a question." In the decision reported in Elumalai Naicker v. Krishnambal Ammal. 1987 T.L.N.J. 220, our High Court has held as follows: "Indeed, there is an express provision in O.21, Rule 66, C.P.C. which enables the court to summon any person whom it thinks necessary to summon and may examine him in respect to any such matters and require him to produce any document in his possession or power relating thereto for the purpose of ascertaining the matters to be specified in the sale proclamation. The court must, therefore, have before it the necessary material with regard to the nature of the property, whether the property is agricultural property, the use to which the property was being put whether the cultivation is dry cultivation or wet cultivation and such other factors which ultimately go to determine the value of the property." 4. The court must, therefore, have before it the necessary material with regard to the nature of the property, whether the property is agricultural property, the use to which the property was being put whether the cultivation is dry cultivation or wet cultivation and such other factors which ultimately go to determine the value of the property." 4. In the instant case, there is nothing on the face of the ordermade by the learned District Munsif which indicates as to the basis or under what circumstances he has determined Rs.35,000 as the upset price. He has fixed the same without bearing the principles laid down in the decision of the Supreme Court and our High Court which I have referred above. The order has to be necessarily held as an arbitrary one and deserves to be set aside. 5. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed setting aside the order passed by the learned District Munsif, Thiruvannamalai in E.A. No.12 of 1988 in E.P.No.419 of 1986 on O.S.No.8 of 1978 on his file. The learned District Munsif is directed to apply his mind to the question as to what should be the proper upset price which he may determine after making such enquiry as he may deem fit. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.