IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2009 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 9994 of 2009(O) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN EP.63/2002 IN OS.6/1999 of SUB COURT,NEYYATTINKARA .................... PETITIONER: --------------- P.CHRISTUDAS S/O. PONNU NADAR, KRIPA BHAVAN, KARIKKOTHUKUZHI, CHEMBOOR, OTTASEKHARA MANGALAM P.O., NEYYATTINKARA TALUK. BY ADV. MR. G.SUDHEER RESPONDENT: --------------- C.JOHNSON S/O. P.CHELLAPPAN, JITHALAYAM, KALAYIL, OTTASEKHARAMANGALAM P.O., NEYYATTINKARA TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No. 9994 OF 2009 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the judgment debtor in O.S. 6 of 1999 on the file of Sub Court, Neyyattinkara. E.P. 63 of 2002 was filed by the respondent/decree holder for realisation of the amount due under the compromise. The execution petition itself was pending before the court from 2002 onwards. The decree holder approached this court in W.P(C) 5242 of 2009 complaining that the executing court has not issued the proclamation and is not proceeding with the sale. As per Ext.P7 judgment dated 4.3.2009 this court directed the executing court to proceed with the execution petition and not to grant adjournment of sale unless there are compelling reasons. This petition is filed thereafter when the property was proclaimed for sale which is to be conducted tomorrow. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard. 3. The argument of the learned counsel is that the executing court did not consider the objections raised and therefore the proclamation is to be set aside. It was argued that WP(C)9994/09 2 the entire property need not be sold and only a portion of property is sufficient to realise the entire decree debt and therefore executing court is to be directed to consider whether the entire property is to be sold or not. 4. On hearing the learned counsel and going through Ext.P7 judgment passed by this court it is clear that on the request of the petitioner the residential house was excluded by the decree holder and sale is sought only in respect of the remaining property. Though it was contended that as no upset price was fixed by the executing court, the proposed sale is illegal, under Rule 66 of Order XXI executing court has no duty to fix value of the property. It need only show the value as claimed by the Decree holder and the Judgment debtor. I find no illegality or irregularity in the sale proclamation. Writ petition is dismissed. If the petitioner deposits half of the balance decree debt payable and files an application to deposit/pay the balance within two months and also files an affidavit to dispense with fresh sale proclamation, executing court may grant one adjournment of sale. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE okb