IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2010 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 FAO.No. 395 of 2010() -------------------------------- E.A. 53/2010 IN EP. 60/08 IN OS.68/2006 of SUB COURT, CHENGANNUR .................... APPELLANT/JUDGMENT DEBTOR/IST DEFENDANT ----------------------------------------------------------- K.SWAMINATHAN, S/O.KESAVAN, KARINGATTIL, ROHINI SADANAM, PERISSERI MURI, PULIYOOR VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR, NOW RESIDING AT NEW HOME, THITTAMEL, CHENGANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): DECREE HOLDER/PLAINTIFF ---------------------------------------------------------------------- R.RADHAKRISHNA PRASAD, S/O.K.R.RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR, HARISREE, PONNETH TEMPLE ROAD, KADAVANTHARA DESOM, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, KANNAYANOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI. M.HARISHARMA FOR CAVEATOR THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan & P.Bhavadasan, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = F.A.O.No.395 of 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 15th day of December, 2010. Judgment “CR” Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1.The judgment debtor in the course of execution of a decree for recovery of money is the appellant. He challenges an order dismissing an application filed to set aside sale. 2.Two grounds are raised before us. One is that there is no attachment before sale. For one thing, under Section 51(b) CPC, attachment is not a sine qua non to have a sale in execution of a decree. Secondly, the prejudice if any caused in that regard is not demonstrated. Thirdly, no such ground was raised even before the proclamation of FAO395/10 -: 2 :- sale. Hence, we do not find any ground to uphold that objection. 3.The next contention raised is that the sale was not confirmed on the 60th day. The period fixed under Order 21 Rule 90 is for the judgment debtor to apply for setting the sale. All that the rule requires from the Court, is that sale has to be confirmed. It does not prescribe any time limit for the court to confirm the sale. Though confirmation of sale may be relevant to decide the finality and the transaction of title under the sale through the force of the judicial process. We find no merits in this appeal. Dismissed. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. P.Bhavadasan, Judge. Sha/1812