IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2009 / 15TH ASHADHA 1931 FAO.No. 191 of 2007() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN E.A.2924/05 IN EP.1596/04 IN OS.1738/2002 of II ADDL.M.C.,THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER/3RD JUDGEMENT DEBTOR -------------------------------------------------------------------------- JAISON, S/O.KUTTICHAKKU PAUL, CHELAKKOTTUKKARA, CHIYYARAM, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SREEJITH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/DECREE HOLDER ---------------------------------------------------------------------- JEWEL ROCK HIRE PURCHASERS, THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) FOR R1 SMT.R.RAJITHA FOR R1 THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - F.A.O. No. 191 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT Bhavadasan, J, In a suit for money, the appellant, who is the defendant before the court below suffered a decree. In execution of the decree, his property was brought to sale. Sale was conducted on 27.1.2005. The appellant thereafter filed E.A. 2924 of 2005 under Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure pointing out that the sale was vitiated due to irregularity and illegality. It was pointed out that the sale was conducted without complying with the necessary formalities and procedures and infact a fraud has been played. Sale proclamation was not properly drawn up and sale was conducted without proper publication. It is also pointed out that 6.975 cents of property and the building therein was sold for a meager sum of Rs. 65,240/-. It is also contended that the judgment debtor had taken objection to the price of the FAO.191/2007. 2 property as shown by the decree holder and that has not been taken into consideration. 2. The decree holder resisted the petition. He contended that the sale is proper and there are no grounds to vitiate the same. 3. On a consideration of the rival contentions, the court below found that the petitioner before it was unable to establish that there was any irregularity or illegality in the sale, and accordingly dismissed the petition. The said order is assailed in this appeal. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant pointed out that the court below was not justified in declining to set aside the sale. According to him, the property was worth much more than for what it was sold and that the sale is vitiated by fraud. He also complains that the valuation suggested by him was not shown in the proclamation for sale. FAO.191/2007. 3 5. The court below has considered all the contentions taken by the appellant before it and had come to the conclusion that the petitioner was unable to show any real illegality or irregularity in the sale conducted. 6. It is seen from the records that the appellant did not appear after being served with notice in the execution petition. Strictly speaking, therefore, he may not have much to say about the sale. Of course, he has got a case that his property was sold for a pittance. Even though the petitioner had alleged fraud in the court below, details are not seen given. 7. Faced with the above situation, learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that the appellant may be given some time to pay the entire amount and save his property. 8. On a consideration of the various aspects, it is felt that the request of the appellant needs to be considered. Appellant agrees to pay the decree amount and whatever amount due from him as a result of the sale in two equal instalments. FAO.191/2007. 4 In the result, if the appellant pays the amount due from him as per the decree in two equal instalments, first of which shall be paid on or before 6.8.2009 and second instalment on or before 7.9.2009, the sale shall stand set aside. If the appellant fails to comply with the above order, the sale conducted shall remain. The appeal is disposed of as above. P.R. Raman, Judge P. Bhavadasan, Judge sb.