IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2008 / 4TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 19129 of 2008(B) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED / / IN EP.31/2002 IN OS.8/2001 of SUB COURT, OTTAPPALAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------ P. MOHAMMED, AGED 52, S/O. AHAMMEDKUTTY, PURAKOTTIL HOUSE, NATTUKAL.P.O, THACHANATTUKARA, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD., REP. BY ITS MANAGER, OLAVAKODE BRANCH, PALAKKAD. 2. C.A. UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O. APPU GUPTHAN, CHAMPAMPADATH HOUSE, VAKADAPURAM.P.O, KARIMPUZHA, PALAKKAD. BY STANDING COUNSEL FOR R1- ADV. SRI B.S.KRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... WP(C).No. 19129 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF JUNE, 2008 JUDGMENT This petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India for a direction to Sub Court, Ottapalam not to proceed with the property in E.P.31 of 2002, contending that he has complied with the direction in Ext.P1 judgment in WP(C) 9789 of 2008. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing for first respondent were heard. 3. For realisation of the amount due and claimed in E.P.31 of 2002, in execution of the decree in O.S.8 of 2001 on the file of Sub Court, Ottapalam, mortgaged property was sold and was purchased by the decree holder. When the decree holder sought to take delivery of the property, WP(C) 9789 of 2008 was filed for a direction to the decree holder, Bank to receive the entire amount due before the end of April 2008. Under Ext.P1 judgment, this court directed petitioner to pay Rs.50,000/- on or before 10.4.2008 and to pay the entire balance amount on or before 21.5.2008. It was provided that if the amounts are not paid as stipulated, decree holder is entitled to take delivery on 31.5.2008. WP(C) 19129/2008 2 4. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that petitioner has paid the entire amount as directed in Ext.P1 judgment. Learned counsel appearing for first respondent submitted that the amount was not paid. If the amount is not paid as directed in Ext.P1 judgment, first respondent decree holder is entitled to take delivery of the property. On the other hand, if petitioner has paid the entire amount due, then executing court cannot direct delivery of the property. Petition is disposed accordingly. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-