P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) JUDGMENT this civil revision petition is filed by the revision petitioners-judgment debtors in O. E. P. No. 309/98 in O. S. No. 764/ 94 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor. ( 2 ) THE respondent in the Civil Revision Petition is the Decree-holder. The petitioners had filed the present Civil Revision Petition aggrieved by an order dated 27-9-2000 made in E. P. No. 309/98 in O. S. No. 764/94 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor for settlement of terms which in fact was made in pursuance of the order dated 25-9-2000, which reads as follows:- "the petitioner valued the E. P. schedule properties at Rs. 32,000/- whereas the respondents alleged its value at Rs. 11,40,000/- basing upon a market value certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar concerned. The Amin of the Court who visited the E. P. schedule properties, valued the same in the presence of the village elders at Rs. 67,000/- though they filed a market value certificate issued by the authority concerned the same is not binding on the ground for the reason that the said market value certificate also contains a further certificate by issuing authority to effect that the valuation thereof was made on the basis particulars furnished by the party itself, and that the genuineness of the said particulars as not been verified by the said authority. Therefore market value certificate is of the use to the case of the respondents as it is self serving document. Besides the above, the valuation made by the Amin on the above said rate which is done in the presence of village elders who are third parties being disinterested in the result of the litigation, can be taken as the correct valuation of the property. Hence the upset price of the E. P. schedule properties is fixed at Rs. 67,000/ -. ( 3 ) HEARD both the Counsel. ( 4 ) SRI D. Vijaya Chandra Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the petitioners with all his vehemence had contended that there is wide disparity between the values given by the petitioners and the respondent and the Court below had committed a material irregularity in fixing the upset price of the E. P. property at Rs. 67,000/ -. ( 4 ) SRI D. Vijaya Chandra Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the petitioners with all his vehemence had contended that there is wide disparity between the values given by the petitioners and the respondent and the Court below had committed a material irregularity in fixing the upset price of the E. P. property at Rs. 67,000/ -. The learned Counsel also had contended that this will cause lot of prejudice to the Revision Petitioners and it is in violation of the provisions of Order 21, Rule 66-E of the Code of Civil Procedure, hereinafter referred to as "code" for the purpose of convenience. The learned Counsel had stressed on the aspect though the market value certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar was produced, the fancy value of Rs. 67,000/- given by the Amin was accepted. The learned Counsel also had taken me through the schedule and had contended that the very object of drawing the proclamation will be defeated if such a method is adopted while fixing the upset price by Courts while conducting the Court auction sales, ( 5 ) SRI K. S. Gopala Krishnan, the learned Counsel representing the respondent decree-holder had contended that the object of the proclamation is to draw as many bidders as possible to participate in the Court auction and the provisions of Order 21 Rule 66 of the Code are only directory and not mandatory and even otherwise the Court below had fixed the upset price based on the valuation given by the Amin who had visited the E. P. schedule property and valued the same in the presence of village elders. The learned Counsel also had contended that this by itself does not cause any prejudice to the Revision Petitioners and the respondent-Decree-holder is more interested in realization of his amount and not in the sale of the property as such. But inasmuch as the Revision Petitioners are not inclined to make the payment, the properties are being brought to sale and only with a view to delay the execution such objections are being raised. The learned Counsel also had placed reliance on Pothyreddy Somanandarao and others v. Sareppalli Veerabhadrayya and others, 1959 ALT 436. ( 6 ) THE facts of the case reveal that the Decree-holder-respondent in the Civil Revision Petition had valued the E. P. schedule properties at Rs. The learned Counsel also had placed reliance on Pothyreddy Somanandarao and others v. Sareppalli Veerabhadrayya and others, 1959 ALT 436. ( 6 ) THE facts of the case reveal that the Decree-holder-respondent in the Civil Revision Petition had valued the E. P. schedule properties at Rs. 32,000/- only whereas the Judgment-debtors-Revision Petitioners had valued the same at Rs. 11,40,000/- basing upon the market value certificate issued by the concerned Sub-Registrar. The Amin of the Court who had visited the E. P. schedule properties had valued the said properties at Rs. 67,000/ -. Undoubtedly, there appears to be a lot of disparity between the valuation furnished by the Decree-holder, the valuation furnished by the Judgment-debtors and the valuation given by the Amin of the Court. It was also brought to my notice that interest was granted on the condition of deposit of half of the decretal amount on 3-11-2000 and the said conditional order was complied with. Order 21, Rule 66 of the Code deals with Proclamation of Sales by public auction. Order 21 Rule 66 (2) (e) second proviso specifies as follows:- "provided further that nothing in this rule shall be construed as requiring the Court to enter in the proclamation of sale its own estimate of the value of the property, but the proclamation shall include the estimate, if any, given by either or both of the parties". The Andhra Pradesh State amendment reads:- "re-number the existing clause (e) to sub-rule (2) as (f) and add the following as clause (e):- "the value of the property as stated (i) by the decree-holder, and (ii) by the judgment-debtor". Order 21 Rule 66 (2) (e) provisos were introduced by the C. P. C. amendment Act of 1976. In P. S. Chenoy v. H. Satyanarayan Sastri and others, 1976 (1) APLJ 57 (NRC), (C. MA. No. 104/74 dated 7-6-1976) Division Bench of this Court held that non-inclusion of the value given by the Judgment-debtor which was ordered to be included in the sale proclamation by the executing Court is definitely a material irregularity in publishing and conducting the sale. No. 104/74 dated 7-6-1976) Division Bench of this Court held that non-inclusion of the value given by the Judgment-debtor which was ordered to be included in the sale proclamation by the executing Court is definitely a material irregularity in publishing and conducting the sale. In the decision referred (1) supra, it was observed that under Section 47 of the Code, if there is total absence of proclamation, the authorities are clear that it is an illegality bringing the case within the purview of Section 47, but if there was only a defect in the proclamation it was only an irregularity falling within the ambit of Order 21 Rule 90 of the Code. In Velumuri Subrahmanyam and others v. Velumuri Seetharamanjaneyulu and others, 1994 (2) An. WR 363, while dealing with Order 21 Rule 66 of the Code, it was held that the sales held without notice to the Judgment-debtor and without any proclamation of sale are no sales at all. In V. V. Narayana Chetty v. N. Dhanamma and another, (AAO No. 707/79 dated 15-2-1982), it was observed: "the learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the proclamation of sale did not mention the Judgment-debtor s valuation and, therefore, that being a mandatory requirement, the sale is illegal. He relied upon a Judgment of Ramachandm Rao, J. in M. P. Narisireddy v. M. Venkayya (1977 (1) A. P. L. J. 43 ). But that was a decision rendered by the learned Judge with reference to Clause (e) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 66 of Order 21 C. P. C. as it stood in Andhra Pradesh prior to the amendment of Civil Procedure Code by Civil Procedure Code Amendment Act (Act 104/ 76 ). Prior to the said amendment, clause (e) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 66 of Order 21 required that the proclamation should specify as accurately as possible inter alia the value of the property as stated by the decree holder and by the Judgment-debtor. But this clause (e) does not survive the 1976 Amendment. The amended sub-rule (2) of Rule 66 of Order 21 C. P. C. does not require that the proclamation should state the value as given by the Judgment-debtor. But this clause (e) does not survive the 1976 Amendment. The amended sub-rule (2) of Rule 66 of Order 21 C. P. C. does not require that the proclamation should state the value as given by the Judgment-debtor. Clause (e) of the present sub-rule (2) namely states that the proclamation should state every other thing which the Court thinks material for a purchaser to know in order to judge of the nature and value of the property. Indeed the second proviso to Rule 66 C. P. C. introduced by the Amendment Act reads as follows:- "provided further that nothing in this rule shall be construed as requiring the Court to enter in the proclamation of sale its own estimate of the value of the property, but the proclamation shall include the estimate, if any, given by either or both of the parties". Thus this proviso shows that it is not necessary for the Court to mention its own valuation in the proclamation but if any value is given by either or both of the parties, it should find a place therein". In Srinivasan v. Andhra Bank, AIR 1949 Mad. 398 = 1948 (2) MLJ 569 , it was held that there was no prohibition for the executing Court if it thinks it just and proper and necessary from including the market value of the property on the basis of the material available to it. In Arunchala Thammal v. Kangasabapathi Pillai, AIR 1955 Mad. 720 = 1955 (1) MLJ 285 , it was observed that where there is a wide disparity in the values given by the Judgment-debtor and the Decree-holder it is not only desirable, but proper for the executing Court to ascertain either through a Commissioner or an Amin the approximate value of the property and incorporate the same in the sale proclamation. In E. P. Srirama v. T. V,a. China Rajanna, AIR 1973 AP 24 , a Division Bench of this Court held that the executing Court is not bound to fix and incorporate in the sale proclamation the upset price when there is a wide disparity between the values given by the Judgment-debtor and the Decree-holder though it would be appropriate to give the approximate value in the proclamation after ascertaining it through a Commissioner or an Amin. In Gajadhar Prasad and others v. Babu Bhakta Ratan and others, AIR 1973 SC 2593 (paras 14, 15) the Apex Court while dealing with Order 21 Rule 66 of the Code and the sale proclamation, it was observed : "it may be noticed here that there have been amendments of Order 21 Rule 66 by different High Courts from 1929 onwards dealing with the question of valuation. The Calcutta and the Punjab High Courts have made it clear that "it shall not be its own estimate of the value of the property but the proclamation shall include the estimate, if any, given by either or both the parties". In Andhra Pradesh, Order 21, Rule 66 (2) (e) has been amended to make it obligatory to give the value of the property as stated: (i) by the decree-holder; (ii) by the judgment-debtor. The Madras and Kerala High Courts have also adopted the rule as amended by the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The Madhya Pradesh High Court amended only mentions that the particulars to be provided may include the decree-holder s estimate of the approximate market price. . . . . " it was further observed by the Apex Court at paragraph 15 as follows:- "a review of the authorities as well as the amendments to Rule 66 (2) (e) make it abundantly clear that the Court, when stating the estimated value of the property to be sold, must not accept merely the ipsi dixit of one side. It is certainly not necessary for it to state its own estimate. If this were required, it may, to be fair, necessitate insertion of something like a summary of a judicially considered order, giving its grounds, in the sale proclamation which may confuse bidders. It may also be quite misleading if the Court s estimate is erroneous. Moreover, Rule 66 (2) (e) requires the Court to state only the facts it considers material for a purchaser to judge the value and nature of the property himself. Hence, the purchaser should be left to judge the value for himself. But, essential facts which 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 object of Order 21, Rule 66 (2) (e), Civil Procedure Code. Hence, the purchaser should be left to judge the value for himself. But, essential facts which 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 object of Order 21, Rule 66 (2) (e), Civil Procedure Code. The Court has only to decide what all these material particulars are in each case. We think that this is an obligation imposed by Rule 66 (2) (e ). In discharging it, the Court should normally state the valuation given by both the decreeholder as well as the judgment-debtor where they have both valued the property; and these do not appear fantastic. It may usefully state other material facts, such as the area of land, nature of rights in it, municipal assessment, actual rents realized, which could reasonably be expected to effect 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. " it is not in dispute that there is remarkable disparity relating to the valuation of the schedule property as given by the Decree-holder and the Judgment-debtors in this matter. Now, the Amin also had furnished his own valuation. It is no doubt true that in matters of this nature, the executing Courts will be placed in a dilemma while fixing the upset price and no doubt normally the judgment-debtors even with a view to delay or stall further execution proceedings may be giving the valuation on higher side and the Decree-holder may be interested in giving the valuation on the lower side with a view to realize his decretal amount or even with a view to participate in the bid with the permission of the Court with a view to be successful bidder ultimately in certain cases. The executing Courts are expected to strike a balance always while deciding the valuation taking all the material into consideration. Here is a case where the market value certificate issued by the concerned Sub-Registrar was produced and the value given is Rs. 7,40,000/- whereas the value given by the Amin of the Court is only Rs. 67,000/ -. This disparity also appears to be abnormal disparity, which may definitely cause prejudice to the Revision Petitioners-Judgment-debtors. Here is a case where the market value certificate issued by the concerned Sub-Registrar was produced and the value given is Rs. 7,40,000/- whereas the value given by the Amin of the Court is only Rs. 67,000/ -. This disparity also appears to be abnormal disparity, which may definitely cause prejudice to the Revision Petitioners-Judgment-debtors. It is no doubt true that a fantastic value furnished need not be adopted by the executing Court, but it is always desirable to fix a reasonable valuation. In the light of the foregoing discussion I am satisfied that the Court below had erred in totally ignoring the valuation certificate produced by the Revision Petitioners-Judgment-debtors and hence in the fitness of things, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Court below to consider the fixation of the valuation again on the material placed before it by all the parties concerned including the Amin of the Court and fix the upset price after taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case and further proceed with execution in accordance with law in the light of the observations made above. ( 7 ) THE civil revision petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. But however, each party to bear their own costs in the facts and circumstances of the case.