IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 8TH OCTOBER 2009 / 16TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 19824 of 2009(O) --------------------------------------- OS.545/2004 of MUNSIFF COURT, WADAKKANCHERRY .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------------- SASIKUMAR, AGED 50 YEARS S/O.KAMALAKSHI AMMA, KURUVALI HOUSE DESAMANGALAM VILLAGE, DESOM, THALAPPILLY TALUK. BY ADV. MR.P.K.SAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ SML FINANCE LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 19824/2009-O APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE SALE PROCLAMATION DATED 03/06/2009. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.19824 OF 2009 (O) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking mainly the following reliefs: i. to direct the court below to keep the sale proceedings in abeyance. ii. to permit the petitioner to file his objection to the Rule 66 notice. iii. to direct the court below to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law considering the objection of the petitioner. 2. Petitioner is the judgment debtor in E.P.No.12 of 2005 in O.S.No.545 of 2004 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Wadakkanchery. While admitting the writ petition, interim stay was granted subject to condition of deposit of a portion of the decree debt. Stay so granted was extended on deposit of WPC.19824/09 2 the amount ordered with further direction to deposit the sum fixed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the further direction so fixed by this Court could not be complied with. Though notice was ordered to the respondent/decree holder, service remains to be completed. In the given facts of the case, I find awaiting return of notice of the decree holder is not necessary. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find the petitioner has no tenable grounds to impeach the sale ordered by the court to realise the decree debt. The writ petition lacks merit, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp