IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 28534 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN EP. 21 /2007 IN OS.197/2005 of PRL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- 1. SRI.HEMARAJAN,S/O.BAPPUTTY, MELOTH HOUSE,MAKKADA P.O., KAKKODI,KOZHIKODE. 2. SRI.HASHIF,S/O.PARI M., PALAPPARAMBATH HOUSE, G.A.COLLEGE P.O.,CALICUT. BY ADV. MR.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- M/S.SHIRAM INVESTMENTS LTD., MODERN TOWER,WADAKKANCHERY ROAD,KUNNAMKULAM, REP.HEREIN BY THE DIVISIONAL-IN-CHARGE AND THE POWER OF ATTORNEY AGENT OF SRI.JOSEPH THOMAS, S/O.THE LATE THOMAS,AGED 35 YEARS,KANIYAMKUNNEL HOUSE,P.O.EDAPUZHA,KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.RAJESH NAMBIAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.28534/2009 O APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE DECREE IN O.S.NO.197 OF 2005 BEFORE THE SUB COURT, THRISSUR DTD. 23/12/2005. P2: COPY OF THE I.A.NO.351/09 DTD. 13/01/2009 IN O.S.NO.197 OF 2005 BEFORE THE SUB COURT, THRISSUR. P3: COPY OF THE I.A.NO.352/09 IN O.S.NO.197 OF 2005 BEFORE THE SUB COURT, THRISSUR DTD. 13/01/2009. P4: COPY OF THE I.A.NO.1698/09 IN O.S.NO.197 OF 2005 BEFORE THE SUB COURT, THRISSUR DTD. 9/03/2009. P5: COPY OF THE PROCLAMATION OF SALE DTD. 13/08/2008 FILED IN E.P.NO.21 OF 2007 IN O.S.NO.197 OF2005. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.28534 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are the judgment debtors in E.P.No.21 of 2007 in O.S.No.197 of 2005 on the file of the Sub Court I, Kozhikode. The decree passed by the Sub Court, Thrissur, on transmission to the above court is being executed by that transferee court. In the execution proceedings an immovable property belonging to the second judgment debtor had been attached and proceeded for sale. Settlement of proclamation, it is submitted, has been effected and sale is also fixed. At that stage, petitioners/judgment debtors filed this writ petition challenging the proclamation settled for sale, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Notice being given, decree holder has entered appearance. I heard the counsel on both sides. 3. It is submitted at the time of hearing a conditional order passed by this Court directing deposit of a portion of W.P.(C).No.28534 of 2009 - O 2 decreetal amount has not been complied with by the petitioners/judgment debtors. After hearing the counsel on both sides, I find no tenable ground has been made out by the petitioners/judgment debtors to impeach the proclamation settled for sale to realise the decree debt. There is no merit in the writ petition, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-