IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2008 / 28TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 2188 of 2008(I) ------------------------------------ OS.410/2002 OF THE SUB COURT, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- POULOSE ,S/O. MATHAI, KANIYAMPADIKKAL HOUSE, CHUVANNAMANNU DESOM, PANANCHERRY VILLAGE THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.RAJAN VELLOTH SRI.A.S.SABU RESPONDENT: --------------------- KSHEMANIDHI KURIES & LOANS (P) LTD. CHEMBUKKAVU VILLAGE,THRISSUR TALUK REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIMAN,C.L.JOSEPH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.2188 of 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT The judgment debtor in E.P.No.461 of 2003 on the file of the Sub Judge, Thrissur is the writ petitioner. Towards realisation of the decree debt, the property was sold in court auction. The decree holder purchased the property in court auction. Sale was confirmed. Sale certificate has been issued. The decree holder sought delivery of the property. Petitioner sought time for settlement of the dispute with the decree holder. The court granted time for settlement. Ultimately on 20.11.2007 the court passed Ext.P4 order. Ext.P4 order shows that even on that day the writ petitioner sought two months time for settlement. Though the court found that sufficient opportunity was already granted and it was not settled, on the submission of the decree holder, the date for taking delivery was adjourned beyond two months, which was the time prayed for by the judgment debtor before the executing court. It is the said order which is being challenged in this writ petition. 2. Argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that petitioner is a poor agriculturist and some more time may be granted. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in Ext.P4 order. Even though two months time was sought for, it was granted by the executing court by adjourning the delivery to a date beyond two months. In such circumstances the writ petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE vns