IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 27TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 22524 of 2009(O) --------------------------------------- [OS.NO.231/2001 OF MUNSIFF COURT, CHANGANACHERRY] .................... PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. ANSAMMA ANTONY, W/O. ANTONY, MATHIPURATHU HOUSE THRIKKODITHANAM PO, CHANGANACHERRY. 2. M.V.ANTONY, MATHIPURATHU HOUSE,THRIKKODITHANAM P.O, CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADVS. MR.A.X.VARGHESE, MR.A.V.JOJO. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE,THRICKODITHAN BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY BRANCH MANAGER. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/09/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.22524/2009-O: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, CHANGANACHERRY DTD. 07/09/2004 IN O.S. 231/2001. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN A.S. 91/2007 DTD. 08/08/2007. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS. EXT.P.4: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN E.P. 80/2008 IN O.S. 231/2001 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, CHANGANACHERRY. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C).No.22524 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of September 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs. i) Direct the Munsiff Court, Changanachery to keep in abeyance all further proceedings in E.P No.80/2008 in O.S No.231/2001 and also directed to give an opportunity for setting the entire dues with the bank as instalment. ii) Such other reliefs that this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper. 2. Petitioners are the judgment debtors in E.P No.80 of 2008 in O.S No.231 of 2001 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Changanassery. The decree executed is one passed for money and the W.P.(C).No.22524 OF 2009 Page numbers respondent is the decree holder. Overruling the objections raised by the petitioners, execution court directed the decree holder to take further steps for execution of the decree. Ext.P4 is that order. Challenging the propriety and correctness of that order, the writ petition has been filed invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. At the time of presentation of the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire decree debt shall be deposited if a breathing period is granted and accordingly sale was directed to be adjourned on condition of the petitioner depositing the entire decree amount within a period of six weeks by orders passed by this court. The learned counsel for the respondent / decree holder submits that the W.P.(C).No.22524 OF 2009 Page numbers decree debt has not been discharged till date. Ext.P4 order passed it is seen only negatived the objections raised to the execution of the decree taken by the decree holder. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that proclamation has not been stated for sale, but, attachment of the property of the judgment debtor has been carried out. Whatever be the objections, the petitioners / judgment debtors have against the proclamation it can be canvassed before the execution court. There is no merit in the writ petition, and it is dismissed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv