IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 33979 of 2008(T) -------------------------------------------- OS.81/1998 of SUB COURT, CHERTHALA .................... PETITIONER: SHEELA, USHANILAYAM, PADINJATTUMKARA THEKKUM MURI, THURAVOOR THEKKE VILLAGE, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) SRI.S.SUJIN RESPONDENT: M/S.LORD KRISHNA BANK LTD., HEAD OFFICE AT KODUNGALLUR - REPRESENTED BY THE BRANCH MANAGER ERAMALLOOR BRANCH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. Balachandran, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C)No.33979 of 2008 T -------------------------- JUDGMENT Petitioner is the second judgment debtor in O.S.No.81/98 on the file of the Sub Court, Cherthala. It is submitted that he filed Exhibit P2 objection to Rule 66 notice and thereafter as her counsel was not present she was set ex parte on 30.5.2005. She filed E.A.No.219/05 to set aside the ex parte order. But the court below dismissed the EA holding that the petition is barred by limitation. She again filed E.A.No.165/07 to review Exhibit P4 order passed on E.A.No.219/05 and that was dismissed by the court below observing that there is no infirmity in Exhibit P4 order and no grounds are made out to review the order. It is assailing the said orders that the petitioner/ second judgment debtor has filed this writ petition. 2. It is worthy to note that the execution proceedings were initiated for sale of immovable WPC 33979/08 2 properties belonging to the petitioner/second judgment debtor. By no stretch of imagination can one conceive of a situation when the judgment debtor will not be heard as regards his objection to Rule 66 notice, if at all he/she comes forward and files objection to Rule 66 notice before sale is conducted or the property is proclaimed for sale after settling the proclamation. In the instant case, according to the petitioner, objection to Rule 66 notice had been filed and it was only on account of the absence of the counsel that the petitioner was set ex parte on 30.5.2005 and that the objection filed to Rule 66 notice, which is produced before this Court as Exhibit P2, had already been filed in the court below. Even assuming that the counsel for the petitioner/ second judgment debtor had not turned up, it was up to the execution court to pass appropriate orders, considering the objection to Rule 66 notice as well. WPC 33979/08 3 3. Considering the entire circumstances of the case, I direct the court below to consider the objection filed by the petitioner/second judgment debtor to Rule 66 notice and settle the proclamation for sale only after considering the objection and passing appropriate orders thereon. Petitioner is directed to produce a copy of this judgment before the execution court and with notice to the decree holder, as this writ petition is being disposed of without notice to the respondent. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Issue copy to the counsel for the petitioner urgently. 18th November, 2008 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv