IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2008 / 26TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 1957 of 2008(G) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED / / IN EP 55/2006 IN EA 27/2008 IN OS.31/2004 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER: ------------ SEBASTIAN V.MATHEW, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.C.M.MATHEW, RESIDING AT VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHEKKIDIKADU.P.O., EDATHUA, KUTTANADU TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.SANTHOSH BABU SRI.K.K.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR (178/74) RESPONDENTS: ------------- A.R.T.LEASING LTD., 2ND FLOOR, PUTHIYATHU BUILDING, M.C.ROAD, CHENGANNUR. REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, K.S.BALARAMAN NAIR, USHUS HOUSE, ALA PO, CHENGANNUR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ------------------------- WP(C) No. 1957 of 2008 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 16th day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T This writ petition is preferred to set aside Ext.P1 proclamation of sale. It is seen that the upset price of the property is fixed as Rs.4 lakhs and the sale is directed to be held on 17/01/2008 at 2 pm. The learned counsel had given me the decree for perusal, which shows that it is a decree on admission. The principle grievance is that the property is having an extent of 12 cents and it is worth at least, Rs.9 lakhs, where as the decree debt is only Rs.1,41,000/- etc. and therefore, even if sale is to be done, it can be with respect to a portion of the property. It is true that the writ petitioner has not filed his objections in time and had not challenged the correctness at the relevant point of time. Whatever it maybe, the Apex Court as well as this Court in so may cases, had taken the stand that, as far as possible the minimum property that is required for the discharge of the decree debt need alone be sold. Taking into consideration these aspects, I direct the court below to consider and pass appropriate orders in Exts.P2 to P4 objections within a time frame of one month from today and in order to do the same, defer the sale posted on 17/01/2008 by a period of six WP(C) No. 1957/2008 -2- weeks. The court can pass appropriate orders for fresh sale after disposal of Exts.P2 to P4 applications in accordance with law. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE) jg