Order 7

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Ex No. 43/2026
Anil Dhiman Vs. Saurav Dhiman
21.07.2026
The file is taken up today on application.
Present : Sh. Abhinav Rathi, Ld. counsel for the Applicant.
An application under Order XXI Rule 66 read with
Section 151 CPC has been filed on behalf of the
applicants/Judgment Debtors seeking recall, modification and
revision of the order dated 01.07.2026, fixation of a realistic fair
market value/reserve price of the attached property, and an interim
stay on the publication of the sale proclamation and the proposed
auction proceedings. Along with the application, the
applicants/Judgment Debtors have also filed a copy of the detailed
valuation report dated 06.07.2026.
The principal grievance of the applicants/Judgment
Debtors is that the Decree Holder has not placed on record a correct
and reliable valuation report for the purpose of determining the
reserve price of the property proposed to be auctioned. On the
aforesaid grounds, the applicants/Judgment Debtors have sought the
following reliefs:
“In light of the exhaustive scientific valuation, the
documented poor physical condition of the 46-year-old
structure, the narrow street width constraints, and the
statutory mandate of Order XXI Rule 66 CPC, it is most
respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased
Page No. 1/4 Ex No. 43/2026
Anil Dhiman Vs. Saurav Dhiman
-- 1 of 4 --
to:
a. Take the independent Valuation Report dated 06.07.2026
prepared by Beacon Advisory & Valuation Services
(Reference No. Personal/BAVS/2026-27/008) on record;
b. Allow the present objections and recall, modify and
revise the order dated 01.07.2026 to the extent that it fixes
the reserve price and minimum sale price at Rs.
1,98,00,000/-, and re-determine and fix the reserve price of
the subject property bearing House No. 99, out of Khasra
No. 168, Shakarpur, Delhi-110092 at the realistic fair
market value of Rs. 1,38,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore
Thirty-Eight Lakhs only);
c. GRANT AN INTERIM STAY on the operation of the
order dated 01.07.2026, specifically staying the publication
of the sale proclamation in newspapers ("The Statesman"
and "Veer Arjun"), display on the notice board, beating of
drums scheduled on or before 16.07.2026 and the public
auction scheduled for 17.08.2026, during the pendency of
the present application; and
d. Pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of
the case and in the interest of justice.”
It is stated in the application that the minimum reserve
price has been fixed at an exorbitant amount solely on the basis of
the valuation report relied upon by the Decree Holder. It is prayed
that the minimum sale price be revised to 1,38,00,000/- instead of	₹
1,98,00,000/-, as fixed by this Court. In support of the application,	₹
reliance has been placed upon, inter alia, Gajadhar Prasad v. Babu
Bhakta (AIR 1973 SC 2593) and Desh Bandhu Gupta v. N.L. Anand
& Rajinder Singh [(1994) 1 SCC 131].
Page No. 2/4 Ex No. 43/2026
Anil Dhiman Vs. Saurav Dhiman
-- 2 of 4 --
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have
perused the application, the valuation report, and the photographs
placed on record by the applicants/Judgment Debtors.
The object of fixing a minimum reserve price before
auctioning a property in execution proceedings is to safeguard the
interests of both the Judgment Debtors and the Decree Holder and to
ensure that the property is not sold at a grossly inadequate price. At
the same time, the reserve price is only the minimum price below
which the property cannot be sold and does not determine the final
sale consideration, which is to be discovered through a competitive
auction process.
In the present case, the Decree Holder has proposed a
higher reserve price than that suggested by the Judgment Debtors.
Merely because the Decree Holder has proposed a higher reserve
price does not, by itself, furnish any ground for reducing the reserve
price fixed by the Court. Both the Judgment Debtors as well as the
Decree Holder are at liberty to participate in the auction
proceedings, and the very purpose of a public auction is to secure
the highest possible price for the property. In the event the property
is not sold at the reserve price and the auction fails, the Decree
Holder, who has been bearing the expenses of publication and other
incidental costs of the execution proceedings, would be the party
prejudiced thereby.
In these circumstances, no ground is made out for
recalling, modifying or revising the order dated 01.07.2026 or for
Page No. 3/4 Ex No. 43/2026
Anil Dhiman Vs. Saurav Dhiman
-- 3 of 4 --
reducing the reserve price fixed by this Court. The judgments relied
upon by the applicants/Judgment Debtors do not advance their case
on the facts and circumstances of the present matter. Accordingly,
the application, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.
The application stands disposed off.
Put up on date already fixed i.e. 25.08.2026.
(Vikas Garg)
DJ-05/East/KKD
Delhi/21.07.2026
Page No. 4/4 Ex No. 43/2026
Anil Dhiman Vs. Saurav Dhiman
-- 4 of 4 --