IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2010 / 1ST SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 22347 of 2010(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17/07/1998 IN E.P.113/98 IN OS.210/1994 of SUB COURT, CHERTHALA .................... PETITIONER: --------------- P.N.SUGUNAN, AGED 74 YEARS S/O.NARAYANAN, KALPRESH BHAVAN THIRUMALABHAGAM EAST , THURAVOOR. BY ADV. SMT.JOLIMA GEORGE SRI.L.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE BANK OF INDIAN REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER AROOR BRANCH, AROOR, CHERTHALA, 688 534. 2. M/S. R.K.ASSOCIATES XI/572, KHADAJA BUILDING, CHANDIROOR CHERTHALA, 688 537 3. P.RAMAKRISHNAN, MANAGING PARTNER OF M/S. R.K.ASSOCIATES, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.47/510 KAIPPILLIPARAMBIL, PERANDOOR ROAD,KALOOR KOCHI 682 017. 4. R.RAHDAKRISHNAN, PARTNER OF M/S. R.K.ASSOCIATES,RESIDING AT LAKSHMI NIVAS NEAR AJANTA TALKIES, MUNDRA, PANDIKKUDY, KOCHI-01 5. K.RUGMINI AMMAL, RESIDING AT 47/510 KAIPPILLIPARAMBIL,PERANDOOR ROAD KALOOR, KOCHI-17 ADV. SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.C.No.22347 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 23rd day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT This writ petition is in challenge of Ext.P3, sale notice issued by the learned Sub Judge, Cherthala in E.P.No.113 of 1998 in O.S.No.210 of 1994. Respondent No.1 has obtained a decree for recovery of money against petitioner and others. Property of petitioner, 37 cents in extent is being proceeded against for realisation of the decree debt. As learned counsel for respondent No.1 would put it, petitioner has preferred his objection to the draft proclamation schedule in the year, 2006 suggesting value of property as Rs.10,000/- per cent. Grievance of petitioner is that in Ext.P3, sale notice dated 06-03-2010 the estimated value of property is fixed as Rs.10,000/- and if that be so, the bid would start from the said amount. That would cause much prejudice to the petitioner. He has also a prayer that since the loan was availed by respondent Nos.2 and 3, decree holder (respondent No.1) ought to have proceeded against them from whom the amount could have been realised without any difficulty. It is stated by learned counsel that sale is scheduled to be held this W.P.C.No.22347 of 2010 : 2 : day. 2. It is seen from Ext.P3, sale notice that upset price of the property is stated as Rs.10,000/- (for 37 cents). Even in the objection preferred by petitioner some time in the year 2006, value of the property is stated as Rs.10,000/- per cent but that price is not shown in Ext.P3. I must bear in mind that objection was preferred in the year 2006 but sale notice was issued only in June, 2006. True that proclamation was settled in the year, 2008. But escalation of price in the meantime was not taken into account. Executing court has a duty to ensure that property is sold for a reasonable price even if executing court is not bound to give its own estimation of the value of property. Having regard to the facts and circumstances I am persuaded to think that if sale is conducted pursuant to Ext.P3, it would cause prejudice to the petitioner. In the circumstance, Ext.P3 is liable to be set aside and I do so. It is open to respondent No.1 to produce amended proclamation schedule taking into account the objection of petitioner as to valuation of and the present market value of the property. It will open to the petitioner to produce value certificate showing value of the property. W.P.C.No.22347 of 2010 : 3 : Resultantly this writ petition is allowed and Ext.P3, sale notice is set aside. It will open to the petitioner to produce amended proclamation schedule in the manner stated above. Petitioner will get an opportunity to prove the actual value of the property. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-