Judgment :- (Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 against the order dated 10.4.2006 made in E.A.No.88 of 2005 in E.P.No.16 of 2003 in O.S.No.183 of 1999 on the file of the Sub-Court, Gudiyatham ) The order passed in E.A.No.88 of 2005 in E.P.No.16 of 2003 in O.S.No.183 of 1999 on the file of the Sub-Court, Gudiyatham is under challenge in this Revision Petition. 2. The Judgment Debtors in E.P.No.16 of 2003 are the Revision Petitioners herein challenging the upset price fixed by the Court in E.A.No. 88 of 2005 in respect of item Nos. 2 and 3 of the schedule to E.P.No.16 of 2003. Admittedly, the decree amount is Rs.37,56,186/-. The E.P. is for sale of the E.P. Scheduled properties. E.A.No.88 of 2005 was filed by the decree-holder to reduce the upset price for item No.2 from Rs.40,00,000/- to Rs.15,00,000/- and for the item No.3 from Rs.90,00,000/- to Rs.60,00,00/-. The learned counsel appearing for the Judgment Debtors would contend that without following any norms, the learned Sub-Judge has fixed the reduced upset price arbitrarily. 3. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has relied on the decision of the case in ELUMALAI NAICKER Vs. KISHTAMBAL AMMAL reported in AIR 1988 MADRAS 106. The E.P. Court in that case has reduced and fixed the upset price for the property to be sold in public auction from Rs.60,000/- to Rs.10,000/-. The said order was challenged in the said Revision Petition. It has been held by the former learned Chief Justice of our High Court in the dictum that without any basis, the District Munsif has reduced the upset price from Rs.60,000/- to Rs.10,000/-. In that case, the decree holder himself has estimated the value of the property at Rs.15,000/-, inspite of it without considering the same, the learned District Munsif has arbitrarily reduced the upset price from Rs.60,000/- to Rs.10,000/-, which was held to be wholly arbitrary and it was ordered to be set aside. 4. But, that is not the case herein. The decree holder in his petition in E.A.No.88 of 2005, has requested the Court to reduce the upset price for items No.2 from Rs.40,00,000/- to Rs.15,00,000/- and for item No.3 from Rs.90,00,000/- to Rs.30,00,000/-. 4. But, that is not the case herein. The decree holder in his petition in E.A.No.88 of 2005, has requested the Court to reduce the upset price for items No.2 from Rs.40,00,000/- to Rs.15,00,000/- and for item No.3 from Rs.90,00,000/- to Rs.30,00,000/-. But the learned Sub- Judge has not taken into consideration the upset price suggested by the decree holder, but exercising his judicial discretion has fixed the upset price for item No.2 at Rs.25,00,000/- and for item No.3 at Rs.60,00,000/-. Even in the counter filed in E.A.No.88 of 2005, the judgment Debtor has not suggested any amount to show the value of the properties for item Nos. 2 & 3. Only under such circumstances, the learned Sub-Judge has reduced and fixed the upset price for item Nos. 2 and 3 at Rs.25,00,000/- and Rs.60,00,000/- respectively. 5. I do not find any arbitrariness in the fixation of upset price by the learned Sub-Judge. Since there was no bidder to bid the properties in the public auction, the upset price for item Nos. 2 & 3 have been reduced and fixed as Rs.40,00,000/- and Rs.90,00,000/- respectively. The executing Court has no other go except to reduce the upset price and fix the same for the next sale. 6. But one pertinent point to be taken note of in this case is that, eventhough the decree amount is only Rs.37,56,186/-, the learned Sub-Judge has ordered for sale of item Nos. 2 and 3 to realise the decree amount. Item No.3 itself according to the E.P.Court will fetch more than Rs.60,00,000/-. Only under such circumstances, the upset price for item No.3 was fixed at Rs.60,00,000/- and the E.P.Court ought to have proceeded with the Execution Petition in respect of item No.3 first and if the amount was not found sufficient to satisfy the decreed amount, it can proceed thereafter against the other items of properties. But, without resorting to that course, the learned Sub- Judge has ordered for sale of item Nos.2 and 3 by reducing and fixing the upset price. Under such circumstances, it has become necessary for this Court to interfere with the order passed by the learned Sub-Judge in E.A.No.88 of 2005 only for a limited extent, as indicated above. 7. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed in part. Under such circumstances, it has become necessary for this Court to interfere with the order passed by the learned Sub-Judge in E.A.No.88 of 2005 only for a limited extent, as indicated above. 7. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed in part. The order passed in E.A.No.88 of 2005 in E.P.No.16 of 2003 in O.S.No.183 of 1999 on the file of the Sub-Court, Gudiyatham, is set aside in respect of item No.2 alone. As far as item No.3 is concerned, the order of the learned Sub-Judge is confirmed. The learned Sub-Judge can proceed with item No.3 at the first instance and only if the sale price for item No.3 is not found sufficient to meet the decree amount, he can proceed with the other items. The learned Sub-Judge is directed to dispose of the E.P. within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Further, it is open to the judgment Debtors to produce the prospective purchasers at the time of auction. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.