IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 26TH OCTOBER 2010 / 4TH KARTHIKA 1932 OP(C).NO. 453 OF 2010(O) ----------------------------------- OS.1017/1994 OF II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER/JUDGMENT DEBTOR -------------------------------------------------- KARUNAKARAN, S/O. KESAVAN, AGED 75 YRS, MOOLAYIL THALEKKAL VEEDU, KARIMANAL P.O., KULATHOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 583. BY ADV. SRI.D.GANESH KUMAR SMT.KAVITHA.K.I RESPONDENT(S): DECREE HOLDER ---------------------------------------------------- KESAVAN NADAR, S/O. MADHAVAN NADAR, AGED 83 YEARS, PARUTHAPPARA PUTHEN VEEDU, KADAMBANAD, CHERIYAKONNI P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 013. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== O.P(C) No.453 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 26th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T Judgment debtor in E.P. No.459 of 2005 in O.S. No.1017 of 1994 of the court of learned Additional Sub Judge-II, Thiruvananthapuram is the petitioner before me challenging Ext.P5, order. It is contended by learned counsel that as per Ext.P2, proclamation schedule extent of property proposed to be sold is four Ares and that even as per the valuation statement submitted by the decree holder on 19.03.2009 value of the property is stated as Rs.61,765/- per Are but for the sum of Rs.1,96,000/- due from the petitioner four Ares of land belonging to the petitioner is proposed to be sold. It is also pointed out by learned counsel that by Ext.P3, objection petitioner has pointed out that respondent-decree holder was bound to comply with Rule 330 of the Civil Rules of Practice (for short, “the Rules”) but that has not been complied. Still by Ext.P5, order learned Sub Judge has ordered to proclaim and sell the property on 02.11.2010. 2. So far as the valuation of property is concerned it is not disputed that petitioner did not adduce evidence to show that O.P(C) No.453 of 2010 -: 2 :- property would fetch any higher price than the upset price fixed as per Ext.P2, i.e., Rs.2,25,000/-. 3. So far as the contention that Rule 330 of the Rules is not complied I direct the executing court that the objection if any raised before that court shall be considered before property is sold. In other respects I do not find reason to interfere with the impugned order. Original Petition is disposed of directing the executing court to consider and pass appropriate orders on the objection if any raised by the petitioner before that court with regard to non- compliance, if any with Rule 330 of the Rules before property is sold. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv