Badri Sahu and Others vs Pandit Peare Lal Misra and Others

Mullick, J.—No one appears to oppose this appeal. It appears that the decree-holder valued the property for the purposes of sale proclamation at Rs. 1,600. At the sale the decree-holder bid up to Rs. 600, but the Munsif declined to allow him to purchase the property unless he bid up to Rs. 1,300. As the decree-holder was unwilling to do so the sale was not held and the execution case was dismissed. The decree holder then appealed and the Subordinate Judge who heard the appeal agreed with the Munsif. The present second appeal is preferred by the decree-holder.

There is no provision of law compelling the decree-holder to bid up to any sum that may be fixed by the Court. The valuation in the sale proclamation is intended primarily for the protection of the judgment-debtor and for giving information to the bidders at the auction sale. It is in no sense intended to be an exact estimate of the value of the property and if in a sale, properly published and conducted, the highest bid, whether of the decree-holder or any other person, is some figure below the figure given in the sale proclamation, it is not competent to the Court to compel the decree-holder to bid higher than the highest bid.

The order of the Subordinate Judge will be set aside and the appeal will be decreed and the decree-holder''s bid of Rs. 600 must be accepted.

Kulwant Sahay, J.

I agree.