IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 17TH JANUARY 2008 / 27TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 1157 of 2005(K) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN EA 667/01,EP 134/99 IN OS.39/1996 of PRL.M.C.,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: -------------------- GEETHAMANI, D/O. LATE PADMANABHAN, KADAVATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PALACKAL NIKATHIL, PONNARIMANGALAM, MULAVUKAD VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. AMMINI, JUTHAMPARAMBU, RESIDING AT 111/459, CHETIPPADATHU NIKATHIL, PONNARIMANGALAM, MULAVUKADU P.O. 2. ANTONY POTTATHAS, S/O. JOSEPH POTTATHAS, KADAVATHUMPARAMBIL, PONNARIMANGALAM, MULAVUKADU P.O. 3. FRANCIS POTTATHAS, S/O. JOSEPH POTTATHAS -DO- -DO-. 4. SEENA POTTATHAS, W/O. FRANCIS, MANIYANTHARA HOUSE, PONNARIMANGALAM, MULAVUKADU P.O 5. JOSEPH POTTATHAS, KURAVANPARAMBIL, PONNARIMANGALAM, MULAVUKADU P.O. Kss ..2/- ...2.... WPC.NO.1157/2005 K 6. BHUVANENDRAN, KADAVATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PALACKAL NIKATHIL, PONNARIMANGALAM, MULAVUKAD VILLAGE (EXPIRED). 7. RAVEENDRAN, S/O. LATE PADMANABHAN, -DO- -DO-. 8. SUGATHAN, S/O. LATE PADMANABHAN, -DO- -DO-. 9. THEJASSI, D/O. LATE PADMANABHAN, -DO- -DO-. 10. SHAILAJA, D/O. LATE PADMANABHAN, -DO- -DO-. 11. ANILA, D/O.LATE PADMANABHAN, ....DO....DO.... 12. PUSHPA BHUVANENDRAN, W/O.LATE BHUVANENDRAN, ....DO...DO..... 13. SINDHU SANTHOSH, D/O.LATE BHUVANENDRAN, .....DO...DO..... 14. REHNA JAYAKUMAR, D/O.LATE BHUVANENDRAN, ....DO....DO.... 15. SAJANA, D/O.LATE BHUVANENDRAN, .....DO...DO..... 16. RAJEEV LAL,S/O.LATE BHUVANENDRAN, .......DO...DO.... R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN R7 TO R15 BY ADV. SRI.NAVEEN.T THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.1157/2005 K APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF E.P.NO.134/1999 IN O.S.NO.39/1996, MUNSIFF COURT OF ERNAKULAM. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE BALANCE STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS IN E.P.NO.134/1999. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE DRAFT SALE PROCLAMATION DTD. 6/06/2002. EXT.P4: COPY OF E.A.NO.947/2004 IN F.P.NO.134/1999 IN O.S.NO.39/1996, PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 5/11/2004 IN E.A.NO.948/2004 IN E.P.NO.134/1999 IN O.S.NO.39/1996 PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 5/11/2004 PASSED IN E.P.NO.134/1999 IN O.S.NO.39/1996 PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE E.A.NO.1280/2004 MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 17/12/2004 IN E.A.NO.1280/2004. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ----------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No. 1157 OF 2005 ----------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 16TH JANUARY, 2008 JUDGMENT I have heard the submissions of Mr.Dinesh Shenoy. He drew my attention to judgment of this Court in The Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd. v. M/s.Saritha Furniture Mart & another, 2005(4)K.A.J.26 and Kuruvilla Thomas v. State Bank of Travancore (1989(2) K.L.J.485). The decision would certainly go in support of the grounds raised by the petitioner. It is to the effect that it is obligatory that the court shall reduce the upset price when there are no persons to purchase the property on the current upset price. The court cannot insist upon the decree holder purchasing the property on the reason that the decree holder had not filed any objection. Mr.Shenoy submits that the petitioner is more aggrieved about the order passed in the execution petition. Hence, the execution court is to be directed to continue with the sale and the decree holder has no serious objection in the respondents/judgment debtors being afforded opportunity to pay off the decree debt in instalments. Yesterday when the case was called, learned counsel for the judgment debtors was absent. Today also, the learned counsel for the judgment debtor is absent. WP(C)No.1157/2005 -2- Accordingly, accepting the submissions of Mr.Dinesh Shenoy, I direct the Execution Court to continue with the sale after reducing the upset price following the principles laid down by this Court in the Dhanalakshmi Bank's case(supra). At the same time, the Execution Court is further directed to permit the judgment debtor/respondent to pay off the decree debt in instalments of not less than Rs.5,000/- per month on condition that in the event of any single default, the judgment debtors will forfeit the instalment benefits. The impugned order is set aside. The writ petition is allowed to the above extent. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) ks. WP(C)No.1157/2005 -3-