IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2009 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 15152 of 2009(O) ---------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11/02/2009 IN EA 240/2008,EP 7/2006 IN OS.13/2002 of SUB COURT, KASARAGOD .................... PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. M.P. KHADEEJA, AGED 34 YEARS, W/O.K.M. MONU,RESIDING AT BISMILLA MANZIL, MANJESWAR VILLAGE, KASARAGODE DISTRICT. 2. K.M. MONU @ PALLIKUNHI, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. MOIDEENKUNHI, RESIDING AT BISMILLA MANZIL, MANJESWAR VILLAGE, KASARAGODE DISTRICT. BY ADV.MR.A.F.SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA, COMMERCIAL BRANCH, KODIBAIL, MANGALORE - 3, REP. BY THE CHIEF MANAGER. 2. M/S. MOIDEEN LUMBERRA, PROPRIETORY CONCERN, REPRESENTED BY K.M. KHALEL, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. MOIDEEN KUNHI, RESIDING AT KANVATHIRTHA, KUNJATHUR VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGODE DISTRICT. 3. K.I.M MONU, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. IDDINKUNHI, BISMILLA MANZIL, BADAJE VILLAGE.P.O, MANJESWAR, KASARAGODE DISTRICT. W.P.(C) NO.15152/2009 4. MAHABAL SHETTY, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. VISWANATHA SHETTY, RESIDING AT MEYAPADAVU, MOODAMBAIL VILLAGE, P.O. MIYA PADAVU, KASARAGODE DISTRICT. 5. THE DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV.MR.A.JAYASANKAR , SC, KSH. MR.K.K.CHANDRA PILLAI, SC., SBI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.15152 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 2nd June, 2009 JUDGMENT The Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs: 1. Call for the records in E.A.No.240/08 in E.P.No.7/06 on the files of the Hon'ble Sub Court, Kasargod and set aside the order dated 11.2.2009 in E.A.No.240/08 in E.P.No.7/06 on the files of the Sub Court, Kasaragod. 2. To issue appropriate directions to the lower court for rectifying the irregularities in fixing the reserve price of the mortgaged properties/petition schedule properties including the direction to fix the reserve price of the petition schedule property at not less than Rs.48 lakhs (i.e. the valuation fixed by the 1st respondent bank on the mortgaged property at the time of sanctioning the loan). 3. To direct the 1st respondent to settle the loan account in terms of the earlier One Time Settlement and in terms of the Ext.P5 representation. 4. Direct the lower court to refer the matter to the adalat for further negotiation and settlement of the liability in case, this Hon'ble Court is not inclined to allow the prayer No.3. W.P.C.No.15152/09 - 2 - 5. Grant such other reliefs which this Hon'ble Court thinks fit in the facts and circumstances of this case. First and also the 5th respondent have entered appearance through counsel. 2. Petitioners are the judgment debtors 2 and 4 in E.P.No.7/06 in O.S.No.13/02 on the file of the Sub Court, Kasaragod. Admittedly, petitioners have approached this court earlier and moved a Writ Petition challenging the upset price fixed by the court as regards their property which is brought to sale. Sale proclamation was settled fixing a price of Rs.14 lakhs and as there were no bidders when the property was auctioned, the amount was reduced to Rs.13.5 lakhs by the court. Questioning the reduction so made by the court, petitioners preferred the Writ Petition earlier and that was dismissed as meritless by Ext.P2 judgment. Again, the petitioners moved another application before the execution court contending that the market value of the property is much more than the upset price fixed by the court and even at the time when the bank had taken the property as mortgage towards the security of the loan, the valuation of the bank indicated it was at 48 lakhs. Such valuation, according to the learned counsel, was made in the year 2001. Whatever be the merit of the submission W.P.C.No.15152/09 - 3 - made by the learned counsel, it need not be stated that once the proclamation is settled, the judgment-debtor has no right to contend that the upset price for the property is much more and that sum has to be fixed for sale. Such an objection has to be raised at the stage before the settlement of the proclamation for sale and naturally under the present rule that amount has also to be shown in the proclamation. That course having been followed and in the light of the dismissal of the earlier Writ Petition under Ext.P2 judgment, I find no merit in the present petition filed questioning the upset price fixed for sale. The Writ Petition is dismissed. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE