IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 24TH JULY 2009 / 2ND SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 20918 of 2009(O) ---------------------------------------- EP. 6 /1999 IN OS.95/1987 of SUB COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- A.J. THANKAMMA, AGED 53 W/O. M.T. RAJAN, AROOKKUZHIYIL HOUSE, VENGALATHUKUNNU, ANIKKADU VILLAGE MALLAPPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. BY ADV. MR.BINDU SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE MANAGER STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, MALLAPPALLY BRANCH, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. 2. M.T. RAJAN AROOKUZHIYIL HOUSE VENGALATHUKUNNU, ANIKKADU VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. 3. K. GOPALAKRISHNAN, AROOKUZHIYIL HOUSE VENGALATHUKUNNU, ANIKKADU VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C).No.20918 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of July 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs. i) Set aside Ext.P1 notice of auction for sale of the scheduled property fixed on 24/07/2009 in E.P No. 6/1999 in O.S 95/1987 on the file of the Sub Court, Thiruvalla. ii) Issue a direction to the execution court not to proceed further without giving opportunity to submit objection of the petitioner and other judgment debtor for considering the same in E.P No.6/99. iii) Issue such other relief. W.P.(C).No.20918 OF 2009 Page numbers 2. Petitioner is the judgment debtor in an execution proceeding arising from the decree passed in O.S 95/1987 on the file of the Sub Court, Thiruvalla. She challenges the notice issued for proclamation of sale of her property under Order 21 Rule 66 of Code of Civil Procedure, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P1. Her inability to pay the decree amount is canvassed for the reliefs claimed in the petition. The first respondent has entered appearance through counsel. I heard the counsel on both sides. From the submissions made I find, on a previous occasion the petitioner has approached this court and filed a writ petition and, then, a direction was given to pay portion of the decree debt. It appears that, the above that petition was subsequently dismissed. Petition in paragraph No.6 of the writ petition refers to the previous writ petition and its dismissal. If at all she has any W.P.(C).No.20918 OF 2009 Page numbers tenable ground to object the setting of the proclamation of sale of her property she has to raise it before the execution court. A decree passed in a suit instituted in 1987 cannot be allowed to be stalled by filing one petition after another before this court. I do not find any merit in the petition, and it is dismissed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv