IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2009 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 27928 of 2008(Y) ---------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN EP 23/07 IN OS.426/2000 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, PALAKKAD . .................... PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- K.VELAYUDHAN, S/O KUNCHAN, AGED 67, CHENGOL BEHIND GOVT. HIGH SCOOL, KARINGARAPULLY, PALAKKAD. BY ADVS. MR.JACOB SEBASTIAN MR.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR (BALARAMAPURAM) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------------ PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, KANJIKODE BRANCH, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, SASIDHARAN, S/O KORAPPAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.27928/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE EXECUTION PETITION ALONG WITH THE PROCEEDINGS PAPER. P2:- COPY OF THE SALE PROCLAMATION ISSUED I PURSUANCE OF THE ORDER DTD. 14.8.08. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No. 27928 OF 2008 -------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of December 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Petitioner is the second judgment debtor in E.P No.23 of 2007 in O.S No.426 of 2000 on the file of Sub Court, Palakkad. Decree executed is one passed in a suit for money by sale of a mortgage property. Negativing the objections raised by the judgment debtors, the execution court has settled proclamation for sale of the mortgage property fixing an upset price of Rs.8,47,472/- to realise the decree debt. Ext.P2 is the copy of the sale proclamation. Correctness of Ext.P2 is challenged in the writ petition invoking the visitorial jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted that at the time of admitting this writ petition, an interim stay was granted directing the petitioner/second judgment debtor to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- towards the decree debt due. Pursuant to that direction, a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- had been deposited by the petitioner and that W.P.(C).No. 27928 OF 2008 Page numbers sum was withdrawn by the decree holder. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the amount calculated towards the liability arising from the decree debt to settle the proclamation is incorrect, and, over 'B' schedule property, some others also have right, but those objections were not considered by the execution court while passing orders for settling the proclamation for sale is the grievance espoused in the writ petition. I do not find any merit in the objections canvassed. Not even a copy of the objections, if any, raised pursuant to receiving of the notice under Order 21 Rule 66 (2)(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure has been produced with the writ petition. There is nothing on record to show that any tenable objection was canvassed to resist the settling of proclamation for sale and its publication. No interference with the order settling the proclamation for sale in the circumstance emerge for consideration. Writ petition lacks merit, and it is closed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// vdv P.A TO JUDGE