IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 18TH JULY 2011 / 27TH ASHADHA 1933 OP(C).No. 2300 of 2011(O) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN EP.1153/2003 IN OS.2792/2000 of II ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER/JUDGEMENT DEBTOR IN EP 1153/2003/3RD DEFENDANT IN O.S.2792/2000: --------------------------------------------------------------------- P.S.VISWANATHAN, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.PUTHUPULLY SANKUNNI, PONALLUR VILLAGE AND DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.D.DILEEP RESPONDENT(S): DECREE HOLDER IN E.P.1153/2003/PLAINTIFF IN O.A.NO.2792/2000: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- SOUTHERN KURIES AND LOANS (P) LTD, VADANAPPILLY, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SAJEEV THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss OPC.NO.2300/2011 O APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE EX-PARTE DECREE DTD. 07/11/2002. P2: COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE DTD. 17/11/2007. P3: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR SETTING ASIDE SALE, DTD.31/05/2011. P4: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR RELEASING ATTACHMENT DTD. 31/05/2011. P5: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE RESPONDENT COMPANY DTD. 05/07/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P(C).No.2300 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 18th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT Judgment debtor in E.P.No.1151 of 2003 in O.S.No. 2792 of 2000 of the Court of learned Munsiff, Thrissur is the petitioner before me. For realisation of amount due to the respondent as per the decree, property of petitioner was sold in Court auction and purchased by the respondent/decree holder. Thereafter there was a settlement between parties as per which petitioner claimed that he has paid the entire amount due to the respondent. Petitioner filed application to set aside the sale by cancelling the sale certificate (already issued to the respondent) and release the attachment but, that application was closed by the learned Munsiff since the application was filed after 190days of the prescribed time. The prayer in this original petition is to set aside the sale certificate pursuant to the settlement. 2. I have heard learned counsel on both sides. Parties have filed a joint petition (I.A.No.11569 of 2011) where it is stated that respondent has received the entire amount due under the decree and that compromise could be recorded and this original petition could be allowed. O.P(C).No.2300 of 2011 -: 2 :- 3. Since the application to set aside the sale was filed beyond the prescribed time, question of condonation of delay as rightly observed by learned Munsiff did not arise since Sec.5 of the Limitation Act has no application. In that situation, it is not appropriate for this Court to interfere in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution and set aside the sale. 4. But, in view of the settlement that parties have reached, respondent can re-convey the property to the petitioner for which respondent has no objection and equity and justice also required the respondent to do so since they have accepted the entire amount due and have agreed to settle the matter. In view of the above, it is open to the parties to execute appropriate re conveyance and for that, interference of this Court is not required. This original petition is closed with the above observations and recording the submissions made by learned counsel on both sides regarding re-conveyance. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-