IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2010 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 8595 of 2009(O) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDERIN EP.319/08 IN EA.433/08 IN ARC.105/2007 of MUNSIFF'S COURT, KASARAGOD .................... PETITIONER: --------------- RADHA A.P. W/O. ACHUTHA AP CHENIKARA, NULIPADY, KASARGOD P.O. KASARGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH RESPONDENT: --------------- THE KASARGOD CO-OPERATIVE TOWN BANK LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, DIVAKARA PRABHU RESIDING AT KASABA, KASARGOD POST, ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR SMT.VANDANA MENON THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.C.No.8595 OF 2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 : COPY OF E.P.NO.319/2008 DTD.05-12-2008 EXHIBIT P2 : COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.20-02-2009 EXHIBIT P3 : COPY OF THE SALE PROCLAMATION THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.C.No.8595 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 27th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT Judgment debtor in A.R.C.No.105 of 2007 being executed in the court of learned Principal Munsiff, Kasaragod has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P2, order on E.A.No.433 of 2008 filed by the respondent. That was an application to approve the draft proclamation for sale of the property of petitioner. Market value of the property suggested by respondent was Rs.1,20,000/- while petitioner assessed value of the property and the building as Rs.4,00,000/-. As per the impugned order, executing court directed that the value estimated by both parties be included in the proclamation for sale. As per order of this court on 18-03-2009, petitioner has deposited Rs.20,000/- in the executing court. Though there was an order on 21-05-2009 to deposit a further sum of Rs.20,000/-, that direction has not been complied. Now petitioner only seeks installment facility to discharge the decree debt. 2. I have heard counsel on both sides. Having regard to the circumstances stated by learned counsel for petitioner, I am inclined to permit petitioner to pay the amount due under the W.P.C.No.8595 of 2009 : 2 : decree in six equal monthly installments. 3. So far as the order impugned is concerned, I do not find reason to interfere since value estimated by the petitioner is also directed to be incorporated in the proclamation schedule. Resultantly, the revision petition is dismissed. But petitioner is granted time to pay the amount in the following lines: (i) Petitioner is however permitted to pay the amount due under the decree in six equal monthly installments beginning from 01-06-2010. In case of any two default in payment of the amount, it will be open to the respondent to proceed with the execution of the decree. (ii) Petitioner shall file a statement in the executing court within ten days from this day waiving fresh proclamation for sale in case proclamation schedule has been filed incorporating the value suggested by the petitioner as per Ext.P2, order. (iii) The amount if any in deposit in the executing court can be withdrawn by the respondent and the same will be adjusted towards the amount due under decree. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-