IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 21ST MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 31808 of 2008(J) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09/07/2008 IN EP 456/2004 IN OS.992/2001 of MUNSIFF COURT, WADAKKANCHERRY .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- JOSE, AGED 48 YEARS,S/O.THOMAS EDAKATHUR HOUSE, VELLARAKADU VILLAGE DESOM THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT SRI.RANJIT BABU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. GANGADHARAN S/O. RAVUNNI, PADAPARAMBIL HOUSE NEENDOOR DESOM, CHIRAMANENGAD VILLAGE THRISSUR. 2. VIJAYAN, S/O. APPUKUTTAN, PIROTHU HOUSE MARANTHAMKODU DESOM, CHOWANNUR VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK. 3. BAHULEYAN, S/O. KUNJUNNI, MELEPURATHU HOUSE, CHIRAMANENGAD DESOM, THALAPPILLY TALUK. 4. ANTONY,S/O. VARGHESE, THEYYAL HOUSE, VELLARAKKAD DESOM, THALAPPILLY TALUK. ADV. SRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 31808/2008 -2- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE SALE ADVERTISEMENT DATED 26.4.2006. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.10.2006 IN WPC NO.14403/2006 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9.7.2008 IN E.P.NO.456/2004 IN O.S.NO.992/2001 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, WADAKKANCHERRY. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.31808 of 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner/judgment debtor challenges the order dated 9th July 2008 in EP.No.456/04 in O.S.No.992/01 on the file of the court of the Munsiff, Wadakanchery by which the court below rejected the contentions put forward by the petitioner. Two items of immovable properties were sought to be sold in execution of the money decree. The petitioner contended that for realisation of the decree amount, it is not necessary to sell both the items together. He filed Writ Petition No.14403/06 challenging the order for sale of both the items together. This Court disposed of the Writ Petition directing the executing court to consider the objection that sale of both items together is not necessary. Accordingly, the court below found that item No.2 property alone need be sold to realise the decree debt. Another objection raised by the petitioner judgment debtor was regarding the valuation of the property sought to be sold. This objection was dealt with by the executing court in the order impugned by stating that in the sale proclamation, value as suggested by the petitioner also would be shown. This order passed by the execution court is under challenge. 2. After having heard the learned counsel for the WPC No.31808/2008 2 petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioner suggested that he would be satisfied if six months' time is granted to pay the decree amount in equal monthly instalments. The learned counsel for the decree holder submitted that if time is to be granted, stringent default clause may be provided. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of as follows: The petitioner shall pay the balance decree amount in six equal monthly instalments. The first instalment shall be paid on or before 31st March 2009. The balance five monthly instalments shall be paid on or before the 30th of the succeeding months. If default is committed in payment of any of the instalments, the executing Court shall proceed with the execution petition forthwith. The executing Court shall stay the execution proceedings to facilitate payment of the instalments as mentioned above, subject to the default clause aforesaid. It is agreed by the petitioner that in case it becomes necessary to conduct sale, it is not necessary to issue fresh proclamation and the petitioner waives any such right. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl