JUDGMENT This revision petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order dated 12.7.95 passed by the Add\. District Judge Mandsaur in Civil Execution Case No. 2-B/83/87 thereby accepting the offer of Rs. 72,000/- in the face of the highest offer being Rs. 73,000/- on the ground of absence of the bidder Sukhram and directing further proceedings in that matter. By order dated 8.11.95, further proceedings in the execution were directed to remain stayed. By order dated 22.9.97, this order was modified to remain operative to the question of auction of house only. However, the counsel for the parties submitted that further proceedings suffered eclipse despite modification in the order by this Court. Placing reliance on AIR 1920 Madras 911 (Rajah of Bobbili v. Akkella Suryanarayan Rao Guru and others) and 1971 JLJ 441 (Vishan Swaroop v. Omprakash and others), the counsel for the applicant submitted that the executing Court had no jurisdiction to accept the offer of lesser amount of Rs. 72,000/-. According to him, once higher amount was offered, bid of lesser, amount was to be treated as non-existent and inoperative. The counsel for the non-applicant, on the other hand supports the order on the ground that the executing Court was left with no option but to pursue the aforesaid path in the absence of the bidder Sukhram. In execution of the money decree, the land and house were attached. These were put to auction. Apart from the factum of acceptance of lower amount, the executing Court was also under legal obligation to apply its mind whether it was essential to put the entire property, comprised of house and land to auction and whether a portion of the property was not sufficient to satisfy the decree. In AIR 1990 Supreme Court 119 (Ambati Narasayya v. M. Subba Rao and another), it is held as under :- "There is a duty cast upon the Court under O. 21 R. 64 to sell only such property or a portion thereof as necessary to satisfy the decree. It is a mandate of the legislature which cannot be ignored." -x- -x- -x The order does not reflect consideration to the mandate of the legislature. It is a mandate of the legislature which cannot be ignored." -x- -x- -x The order does not reflect consideration to the mandate of the legislature. In the circumstances, I allow this revision petition, dislodge the order dated 12.7.95 with direction as noted below :-- (a) The executing Court shall apply its mind and pass the order before fresh auction as to how much or which portion of the property in question is sufficient to satisfy the decree under execution and shall proceed further in terms of the order to be passed. It is only on conclusion that entire property was required to be auctioned that the executing Court shall proceed to auction the entire property and not otherwise. (b) The executing Court shall take steps for fresh auction of the entire property or portion of the property as may be found necessary. (c) As the matter is quite old, the executing Court shall make an endeavour to take proper steps without unnecessary delay. It would be proper if the matter is concluded at the level of the executing Court within a period of six months from today. The revision petition is allowed in terms indicated above, but without any orders as to costs. Certified copy of this order may be supplied within three days on payment of usual charges.