MILAP CHANDRA, J. - (1.) HIS revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Chittorgarh dated July 30, 1988 by which he has directed the auction sale of the entire house of the judgment-debtor-petitioner in Execution Case No. 28/85. The facts of the case giving rise to tHIS revision petition may be summerised thus.
(2.) THE decree-holder-non-petitioner obtained a decree for the recovery of Rs. 41,000/-against the judgment-debtor-petitioner. An execution application was moved. Notice under Order 21 Rule 66 C. P. C. was issued. THE judgment-debtor filed an application that the market value of the property sought to be auctioned is Rs. 5,00,000/-, it has deliberately been under valued and the decree would be satisfied by the auction of two rooms only. THE Executing Court dismissed the application and directed the application and directed the auction of the entire house by its order under revision. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the judgment-debtor that the learned Executing Court should have hold an enquiry about the valuation of the house to be auctioned and, thereafter, should have ordered for the auction of a part of the house only, as the market value of the entire house is about Rs. 5,00. 000/- The learned counsel for the decree-holder contended that the execution application is pending since the year 1985 and the judgment-debtor is putting one observation after another in the execution of the decree. He also contended that one sale performation may be issued for the auction of different portions of the house for continuous different dates and the other portions may not be auctioned if the decree stands satisfied by the sale proceeds of the previous auction/auctions. It is clear from the provisions of Order 21 Rule 66 (2) (a), Code of Civil Procedure that a part of the property may be auctioned which may be sufficient to satisfy the decree. It is further clear from the provisions of Order 21 Rule 67 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure that a property may be divided in to lots for the purpose of being sold separately and in such a case, it is not necessary to make a separate proclamation for each lot. In view of these provisions,, it can be said that the learned Executing Court acted with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction in directing the auction of the entire property. It is stated in para No. 1 of the revision petition that the disputed property consists of two floors, i. e. , ground floor and first floor. Valuation report enclosed with the revision petition confirms it. The value of the construction existing on the first floor has been estimated at Rs. 51,709/ -. Thus the first floor of the property may separately be auctioned. If the decree is not satisfied by the sale proceeds of the first floor, a part of the ground floor may further be auctioned. If still the decree is not satisfied, the other portion of the ground floor may further be auctioned. Thus the revision petition deserves to be allowed.
(3.) CONSEQUENTLY, the revision petition is allowed and the order of the Executing Court dated July 30, 1988 is set aside. The juigmsnt-debtor-petitio-ner is directed to file a site-plan of the ground floor of his house dividing it in suitable parts within a month from today failing which the entire ground floor will be put to one auction. The Executing Court will issue one sale proclamation under Order 21 Rule 67 (3), C. P. C. for different lots of the judgment-debtor's property fixing different continuous dates for their sale. The first auction will be of the entire first floor of the house for continuous three days, the second auction will of first portion of the ground floor for the subsequent three days and so on. No subsequent auction will be held if the sale proceeds of the previous auction/auctions satisfy the decree. No order as to costs. The parties will appear before the Additional District Judge, Chittorgarh on August 21, 1989. .;