Judgment The petitioner/respondent/Judgment Debtor has projected this Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 110. 2009 in E.A.No.24 of 2009 in E.P.No.10 of 2008 passed by the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Kodumudi in allowing the application filed by the respondent/petitioner/decree holder under Section 151 of CPC praying to reduce the upset price in the property from Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-. 2. The executing Court while passing order in E.A.No.24 of 2009 on 110. 2009 has interalia observed that " the Court Amin has inspected the petition mentioned property on 210. 2009 and has valued the property on that day as Rs.1,00,000/- based on market value and also that as per the guideline value, the value of the petition mentioned property comes to be known as Rs.1,20,000/-and therefore, it has reduced the upset price to Rs.1,25,000/- from Rs.2,00,000/-fixed earlier and resultantly allowed this application without cost. 3. According to the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner/respondent/Judgment Debtor, the executing Court has not appreciated of the fact that the upset price cannot be fixed on the ipsi dixi of either the Judgment Debtor or the Decree holder and the Court while fixing an upset price has to take into account the relevant facts in an objective fashion to which it has to apply its mind and fixing of the upset price to Rs.1,25,000/- after reducing it from Rs.2,00,000/-is an arbitrary and the illegal order and as a matter of fact the oral and documentary evidence let in by the Judgment Debtor has been simply brushed aside by the executing Court based on the statement of the Amin and therefore prays for allowing this Civil Revision petition in the interest of Justice. 4. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/decree holder submits that the Revision petitioner has filed his counter before the Executing Court in E.A.No.24 of 2009 and the Court has directed the bailiff to enquire the market value of the suit property and to submit his report and accordingly, the bailiff has submitted his report and after considering the report of the bailiff the Executing Court has reduced the upset price and apart from the above RW1/Judgment Debtor during his cross-examination before the executing Court in E.A.No.24 of 2009 has categorically admitted that he has no objection for reducing the amount to Rs.1,20,000/-and only after taking note of the deposition of the RW1/judgement Debtor and also on assessing the entire gamut of the matter in proper perspective, the upset price has been fixed at to fix Rs.1,25,000/-and there is no material irregularity or patent illegality in the impugned order passed by the executing Court and as such the same need not be interfered with by this Court sitting in revision. 5. This Court has paid its anxious consideration to the argument advanced on both sides and noticed the same. 6. It is pertinent to point out that the Revision Petitioner/ Judgment Debtor in his crossexamination on 18.08.2009 before the executing Court in E.A.No.24 of 2009 has candidly admitted that "he has no objection to reduce the upset price to Rs.1,25,000/-". Added further, in the present case on hand the Executing Court has also borne in mind of the market value determined by the bailiff in his report and only after taking into account of the above facultative aspects of the matter has passed a reasonable, a fair and an equitable order and on perusing the impugned order of the executing Court, this Court does not find any error and in fact it has exercised its discretion properly and viewed in that perspective, this Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, the same fails. 7. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition fails and the same is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Resultantly, the order dated 110. 2009 in E.A.No.24 of 2009 in E.P.No.10 of 2008 passed by the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Kodumudi is affirmed by this Court for the reasons assigned in the revision. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2009 is closed.