IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 31ST MAY 2010 / 10TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).NO. 12466 OF 2010(O) ---------------------------------------- E.P. NO.153 OF 2009 IN OS.392/2006 OF PRL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------------- USHA,AGED 56,D/O.ADATTUVALAPPIL RAVUNNY AND W/O.KARANATH CHANDRAN,VIYYUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK,THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- P.K.UNNIKRISHNAN,S/O.PULIKKAPPARAMBIL KRISHNAN,KANIMANGALAM DESOM-VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK THRISSUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.K.N.PADMAKUMAR FOR R1 SRI.K.P.SAILESH (KECHERY) FOR R1 SRI.GINESH.P. FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX --------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: ---------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF E.P. NO.153 OF 2009 IN O.S. NO.392 OF 2006 DATED 11.3.2009 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, THRISSUR. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN DATED 6.10.2009. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN E.P. NO.153 OF 2009 IN O.S. NO.392 OF 2006 DATED 8.3.2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SUB JUDGE, THRISSUR. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: ----------------------------------- NIL TRUE COPY THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== W.P(C) No.12466 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 31st day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T Challenge in this Writ Petition is to Ext.P3, order proclaiming property of petitioner for sale on 17.05.2010. According to the petitioner value shown in the proclamation schedule is not correct. Learned counsel for respondent contends that what is proclaimed for sale is only 3 cents of land and at the time of filing execution petition Rs.40,000/- with future interest and costs was due from the petitioner. 2. It is seen from the order under challenge that value of the property shown by the petitioner is also directed to be incorporated in the proclamation schedule. That will take care of the contention of the petitioner regarding insufficient value of property proclaimed. Since the total extent involved is only 3 cents there is no possibility of any piecemeal sale. In the circumstances I do not find anything illegal in the order under challenge. 3. Petitioner has deposited in the executing court Rs.10,000/- as per order dated 08.04.2010 and requests that he W.P(C) No.12466 of 2010 -: 2 :- may be permitted to pay the balance amount within six months from this day. Learned counsel for respondent is not agreeable in granting six months' time to the petitioner. Having regard to the circumstances stated I am inclined to permit petitioner to pay balance amount due under the decree within three months in installments beginning from 01.07.2010. Resultantly, Writ Petition is dismissed. But petitioner is permitted to pay the balance amount due under the decree in three equal monthly installments beginning from 01.07.2010. Petitioner shall within two weeks from this day file an affidavit in the trial court waiving fresh proclamation for sale if property has already been proclaimed for sale. In case of any default in payment of instalment or filing the affidavit as aforesaid it will be open to the respondent to proceed with execution pursuant to Ext.P3, order. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv