IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2010 / 12TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 3195 of 2010(O) ------------------------- CMA.14/2009 of SUB COURT, HOSDRUG O.S. NO. 382 OF 2002 of MUNSIFF COURT, HOSDRUG .................... PETITIONER: --------------- K.P.KRISHNAN, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.CHOYI AMBU, RESIDING AT KUTTIPURATH HOUSE, `PLACHIKKARA', BEEMANODY VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR. T.K.VIPINDAS RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. JOSEPH JOHN, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, RESIDING AT PRATHIBHA NAGARA, PARAPPA VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. K.A.AUGUSTINE, S/O.AUGUSTY, KALLAPPALIYIL HOUSE, CHITTARIKKAL, CHITTARAIKKAL VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ------------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). No. 3195 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 1st day of February, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner who is the judgment debtor in O.S. No. 382 of 2002 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Hosdurg, filed an application under Order XXI Rule 90 C.P.C for setting aside the sale on various grounds. The said application was dismissed by the Executing Court as per Ext.P1 order dated 11.04.2008. Aggrieved by the said order, he claims to have filed an appeal before the Sub Court, Hosdurg as C.M.A. No. 14 of 200. Since the appeal was filed out of time with a delay of 371 days, he filed I.A. No. 787 of 2009 for condoning the delay. The said application was allowed on terms. As against the E.P amount of Rs.1,25,000/-, an amount of Rs.30,000/- was directed to be deposited within 5 days from the date of the order. It is the said order which is assailed in this writ petition. W.P.(C) No. 3195/2010 : 2 : 2. I am not inclined to interfere with the direction in Ext.P4 order in as much as the petitioner did not even contest the suit and his main contention now is that the sale was conducted suppressing certain facts including the existence of a building put up by him. Those are all matters to be considered in the appeal. I do not think that the direction to pay cost is illegal or beyond the jurisdiction of the lower appellate court. The writ petitioner is however given further time of one month from today to deposit the said amount of Rs.30,000/- before the lower appellate court. With this direction, this writ petition is dismissed. Dated this the 1st day of February, 2010. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv W.P.(C) No. 3195/2010 : 3 :