IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID TUESDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2008 / 18TH POUSHA 1929 CRP.No. 852 of 2003() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10/02/2003 IN EP. 96 /1990 IN OP.FC.100/1982 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, ,ALAPPUZHA. .................... REVN. PETITIONERS: JUDGMENT DEBTORS 2,3,4,5,6 & 8: ------------------------------------------------- 1. N.SUBRAMAYA NAGARAJAN, PARTNER, M/S. NELLAI SONS, MACHUNGAL VEEDU, NORTH OF IRON BRIDGE, ALAPPUZHA. 2. N.MUTHUSWAMI, PARTNER, -DO- -DO-. 3. N.PADMANABHAN, PARTNER, -DO- -DO-. 4. N.LEXMIRAM, PARTNER, -DO- -DO-. 5. N.MANGAYARKARSI AMMAL, W/O. NEELANAYAGOM PILLAI, PARTNER, -DO- -DO-. 6. N.SIVASURYA KUMAR, PARTNER, -DO- -DO-. BY ADVS. SRI.S.SHYAM SRI.G.SUBRAMANIAN RESPONDENTS: DECREE HOLDER & JUDGMENT DEBTORS 1,7 AND 9: -------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, TRIVANDRUM. 2. M/S. NELLAI SONS, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,M.N.NAYAGOM, MACHUNGAL VEEDU, NORTH OF IRON BRIDGE, ALAPPUZHA. 3. M.N.NAYAGOM, MG.PARTNER, -DO- -DO-. 4. (ADDL): M.P.DIVAKARAN, HOUSE NO.546, PRASANTHI NAGAR, ULLOOR, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.V.B.UNNIRAJ, SC, KFC THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN C.M.P. NO. 2054 OF 2003 IN C.R.P. NO. 852 OF 2003. DISMISSED 8.1.2008 Sd/- (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ---------------------------------------------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 852 OF 2003 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of January, 2008 O R D E R Judgment debtors 2 to 6 and 8 have filed this revision petition aggrieved by the order dated 10.2.2003 in E.P. No.96 of 1990 in O.P.(FC) No.100 of 1982 on the file of the Additional District Court, Alappuzha. The revision petitioners are partners of a firm represented by the Managing Partner. By the impugned order, the court below overruled all the objections raised by the judgment debtors to Rule 66 notice and ordered proclamation and sale of the property on 27.3.2003. 2. The revision petitioners submitted before this Court that the property belonging to them having an extent of 60 cents with a building is situated in the heart of the commercial town in Alappuzha. According to them, the property would fetch more than Rs.35 lakhs while the claim in the execution petition is only Rs.3,35,000/-. It is also submitted that they had applied for issuance of a commission to inspect the property and to file a report as to whether sale of 2 cents of property will not be sufficient to C.R.P. NO.852/2003 2 discharge the decree debt. It is further submitted that without considering the objection regarding the value of the property and whether sale of a portion of the property will satisfy the decree, the court below ordered proclamation and sale of the charged property. 3. The court below, on a consideration of the objections raised by the judgment debtors incorporated the objections regarding valuation in the sale proclamation. The court below also held that the point as to whether sale of a portion of the property will be sufficient to satisfy the entire decree is a matter for concern only at the time when it comes up for sale. 4. The revision petitioners contended that if the entire property happened to be sold in execution of the decree in a case where sale of a portion of the property will be sufficient to satisfy the decree, such a sale will cause irreparable loss and injury to them. They also contended that during all these years regular payments were made towards the decree debt and that even at the time of filing the revision, an amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid as directed by this Court. The question whether a portion of the property alone is sufficient to satisfy the decree is a question which was not gone into by the execution court. In view of the seriousness C.R.P. NO.852/2003 3 of the situation and as submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners that the property is a very valuable one fetching several lakhs per cent, I am of the view that the court below should bestow attention to the fact whether sale of a small portion of the property will be sufficient for the purpose of satisfying the decree. 5. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of directing the court below to consider the question whether portion of the property sought to be sold is sufficient for the purpose of proclamation of sale. The court below shall dispose of the matter within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The records shall be transmitted to the court below. (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) sp/ C.R.P. NO.852/2003 4 HAURN-UL-RASHID, J. C.R.P.NO852/2003 O R D E R 8TH JANUARY, 2008