IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2009 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 9301 of 2009(O) ------------------------- OS.32/1989 of SUB COURT, HOSDRUG .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. M.VIJAYALAKSHMI D/O.K.P.DAMODARAN KALIKKADAVU PALLIKKARE VILLAGE, P.O.KEEKAN HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. M.VIJAYAKRISHNAN S/O.K.P.DAMODARAN KALIKKADAVU, PALLIKKARE VILLAGE P.O.KEEKAN, HOSDURG TALUK KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 3. M.RAJALAKSHMI D/O.K.P.DAMODARAN KALIKKADAVU, PALLIKKARE VILLAGE P.O.KEEKAN, HOSDURG TALUK KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 4. M.BHAGYALAKSHMI D/O.K.P.DAMODARAN, KALIKKADAVU PALLIKKARE VILLAGE P.O.KEEKAN, HOSDURG TALUK KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 5. M.DHANALAKSHMI D/O.K.P.DAMODARAN KALIKKADAVU, PALLIKKARE VILLAGE P.O.KEEKAN, HOSDURG TALUK KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 6. M.JAYALAKSHMI D/O.K.P.DAMODARAN KALIKKADAVU, PALLIKKARE VILLAGE P.O.KEEKAN, HOSDURG TALUK. KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 7. M.RADHAKRISHNAN S/O.K.P.DAMODARAN KALIKKADAVU, PALLIKKARE VILLAGE P.O.KEEKAN, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR WPC 9301/09 RESPONDENT(S): --------------- KERALA STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, KANNUR A PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY, WITH ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT P.M.32/244 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.9301 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT The judgment debtors in E.P.No.1 of 2004 in O.S.No.32 of 1989 on the file of the Sub Court, Hosdurg, are the Writ Petitioners. They challenges Ext.P3 order dated 5th March 2009 in E.A.No.22 of 2008. 2. The Execution Petition was filed for realisation of the decree amount by sale of three items of immovable properties belonging to the petitioners. It is stated that the total amount claimed in the Execution Petition will come to nearly Rs.10 lakhs. The total extent of the three items of immovable properties is 3.14 acres. There are residential buildings and other buildings in the properties. The judgment debtors contended that it is not necessary to sell all items for realisation of decree debt. They contended that sale of a portion of one of the items is sufficient to realise the decree debt. The judgment debtors applied for appointment of a Commissioner to assess the market value of the properties. The Commissioner filed a report. Based on the WPC No.9301/2009 2 valuation made by the Commissioner, the decree holder filed Ext.P1 application (E.A.No.22 of 2008) to amend the sale papers incorporating the value and other details as mentioned in the Commissioner's report. As per Ext.P1 application, the decree holder stated that it is sufficient for the time being to sell item No.1. Accordingly, they prayed for deletion of item Nos.2 and 3 from the proclamation schedule. The decree holder also prayed that the value as suggested by the Commissioner may be incorporated in the sale proclamation. 3. The court below considered E.A.No.22 of 2008 and passed a cryptic order which reads as follows: “Counsels on both sides present. It is seen that respondents has filed another counter claiming that value of the property is Rs.35/- lakhs. Hence, value shown as Rs.35,00,000/- as stated by the respondent, in D.S.P. will suffice sale as ordered on 24.3.2009 and report on 25.3.2009.” On a reading of the order passed by the court below, it is not clear whether all the three items would be sold or whether one item would be sold. It is true that in the objections filed by the judgment debtors they stated that item No.1 is worth Rs.35 lakhs. In the order passed by the court below, the court has WPC No.9301/2009 3 directed that valuation should be incorporated in the sale proclamation. Thereafter, it is stated that sale as ordered to be held on 24.3.2009 will be held. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the sale as ordered on 24.3.2009 is in respect of the three items. However, it is not clear from the order as to whether the court has allowed E.A.No.22 of 2008 or dismissed it. The contention raised by the petitioners that on the valuation suggested by them, it is sufficient to sell only a portion of item No.1 was not considered by the court below. For the aforesaid reasons, the order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside. I do so. The court below shall consider E.A.No.22 of 2008 afresh in the light of the objections raised by the petitioners. The court below shall also consider the question whether sale of a portion of item No.1 is sufficient or whether item No.1 can be sold in lots and shall pass appropriate orders accordingly. The Writ Petition is allowed as above. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl