IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2008 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 16217 of 2008(E) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16/01/2008 IN EA/2008 IN EP/2004 IN OS.35/2001 of ADDL.SUB COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER: ------------ K.Y. RASHEED, RESIDING AT FARIS, CIVIL STATION WARD, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENTS: ------------- THE TRADING COMPANY, M.O. WARD, ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, K.JOHN MATHEW, PARKLINE HOUSE, M.O.WARD,ALAPPUZHA. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.16217 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 9th June, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the judgment debtor in O.S.No.35/2001, on the file of the Sub Court, Alappuzha. As per the decree, respondent is entitled to Rs.5,85,219/= with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.3,25,000/=. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging Ext.P4 order, where under petitioner sought a direction to the Executing Court to exclude the immovable properties from sale and only to proceed against the movable properties scheduled in the petition. The Executing Court dismissed the petition under Ext.P4 order, dated 16.1.2008. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard. 3. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on going through Ext.P4 order, I do not find any illegality or irregularity warranting interference. When there is a charged decree, judgment debtor is not entitled to contend that decree holder is not W.P.(C) No.16217/2008 2 entitled to proceed against the charged properties and also has no right to restrict the sale to movable properties, even if the case is that by sale of the movables, the decree debt could be realised. Therefore, Ext.P4 order is legal. The learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that balance decree debt due to the respondent is less than Rupees Two Lakhs and petitioner is making all efforts to make the payment without any delay, and, therefore, time may be granted to the petitioner to pay the decree debt. If the petitioner pays substantial portion of the decree debt and applies to the Executing Court, Executing Court to grant time to the petitioner to pay the balance decree debt. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj.