IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 OP(C).No. 892 of 2010(O) ----------------------------------- ( I.A.NO.2613/2010 IN OS.24/2010 of MUNSIF COURT, KUTHUPARAMBA) .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER -------------------------------------- PARALI CHIRUTHA,D/O.MANDHI(LATE), AGED 75 YEARS,NO OCCUPATION,LEENALAYAM, VALLARVALLI AMSOM,KOTTUMANGA DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK. BY ADVS. SRI.S.M.PREM SMT.K.P.SANTHI SRI.P.K.NIJOY RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------------- PARALI VALSAN,S/O.LATE A.M.KUNHIKANNA, AGED 54 YEARS,SASTRI NAGAR,PALAPPOIL, THOLAMBRA.P.O,MALOOR PANCHAYATH,THALASSERY TALUK. PIN- 670 702. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P(C).No.892 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 30th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT Plaintiff in O.S.No.24 of 2010 of the court of learned Munsiff, Kuthuparamba is the petitioner before me challenging Ext.P1, order on I.A.Nos.2613 and 2624 of 2010. That is a suit for injunction filed by the petitioner to restrain respondent from trespassing into the suit property and committing waste. Petitioner claimed that the property belonged to her son as per sale deed No.656 of 1977 and on the death of son interstate, she has inherited the entire suit property and thus is in possession and enjoyment of the same. During the pendancy of the suit right to take yield from rubber trees was auctioned on 20-10-2010. Respondent bid the auction for Rs.38,000/- but, since petitioner bid for Rs.40,000/- that bid was accepted and auction was settled in favour of petitioner. She did not deposit the amount and requested for a weeks' time for deposit. She filed I.A.No.2613 of 2010 for extension of time. In the meantime, respondent filed I.A.No.2624 of 2010 to cancel the auction stating that if the court were to grant time to deposit the amount he would have bid for a higher amount and his chance has been taken away on account of O.P(C).No.892 of 2010 : 2 : the act of petitioner. Learned Munsiff found merit in the contention raised by respondent. I.A.No.2613 of 2010 was dismissed and I.A.No.2624 of 2010 was allowed. The auction was cancelled and it was directed that fresh auction be conducted. Upset price was fixed at Rs.38,000/-. Court also directed that the highest bidder shall deposit the entire amount at the time of auction itself. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that petitioner is an old lady and that there was no stipulation that the bid amount should be deposited on the date of auction itself. Learned counsel requested that the common order be interfered with. 2. I do not find any irregularity or infirmity in the order under challenge nor any perversity in the said order calling for interference. The impugned order does not restrict right of petitioner to take part in the auction directed to be held as per the impugned order. if petitioner can bid for a higher amount certainly the bid will be settled in her favour. In view of that also I do not find reason to interfere with the order. This petition is dismissed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-