IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DECEMBER 2010 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 OP(C).No. 1013 of 2010() ------------------------ PETITIONER: -------------------------- KUTTAN, S/O.VETTIYATTIL VELAYUDHAN, ALATHUR DESOM, NELLAYI VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.V.BINOY RAM RESPONDENT --------------- DEVAMATHA KURIES LTD., THRISSUR. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P(C).No.1013 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 08th day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT Judgment debtor No.1 in E.P.No.401 of 2004 in O.S.No.1510 of 2002 of the court of learned Principal Munsiff, Irinjalakkuda is the petitioner before me. In a decree for payment of money, property belonging to the petitioner was sold in court auction. To set aside the sale (obviously under Rule 90 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, "the Code) petitioner preferred E.A.No.94 of 2010 and obviously as that application was filed beyond the period of sixty days prescribed under Article 127 of the Limitation Act, petitioner also filed E.A.No.93 of 2010 to condone the delay. Those applications were dismissed on 10-11-2010 according to the petitioner, for default since counsel happened to note the date as 15-11-2010. Thereon petitioner filed E.A.No.1694 of 2010 for review. Petitioner filed E.A.No.1693 of 2010 to advance hearing of the applications. Those applications were dismissed by Exts.P1 and P2, orders. Those orders are under challenge. It is submitted by learned counsel that the property is ordered to be delivered over to the respondent and that petitioner is ready and willing to pay the O.P(C).No.1013 of 2010 : 2 : amount. Learned counsel prayed that Exts.P1 and P2, orders may be set aside. 2. It is seen that E.A.No.94 of 2010 to set aside the sale under Rule 90 of Order XXI of the Code was not filed within the prescribed time. E.A.No.93 of 2010 was filed to condone the delay. That application was obviously not maintainable since Sec.5 of the Limitation Act has no application to proceedings under Order XXI of the Code. E.A.No.1694 of 2010 for review was dismissed by the executing court for valid reasons. I do not find reason to interfere. This petition is dismissed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-