IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 32444 of 2008(K) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN EP.7/06,E.A. 149/08 IN O.S.13/2002 OF THE SUB COURT, KASARAGOD. .................... PETITIONERS : --------------------- 1. M.P. KHADEEJA, W/O. K.M. MONU, MUSLIM, TRADER, RESIDING AT BISMILA MANZIL, HOSANGADI, P.O.MANJESHWAR, KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT. 2. K.M.MONU ALIAS PALLIKUNHI, MUSLIM, TRADER, S/O. MOIDEENKUNHI, AGED 45 YEARS, MUSLIM, BUSINESSMAN, RESIDING AT BISMILLA NAGAR, BANGRA MANJESHWAR VILLAGE, P.O. MANJESHWAR, KASARAGOD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER RESPONDENTS : ----------------------- 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA, COMMERCIAL BRANCH, KODIALBAIL, MANGALORE -3 REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF MANAGER. 2. M/S. MOIDEEN LUMBERS A PROPRIETORY CONCERN, REPRESENTED BY K.M.KHALEEL, S/O.MOIDEEN KUNHI, MUSLIM, RESIDING AT KANVATHIRTHA KUNJATHUR VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT. 3. K.M. MONU, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. IDDINKUNHI, MUSLIM, TRADER, RESIDING AT BISMILLA MANZIL, BADAJE VILLAGE, HOSANGADI, P.O. MANJESHWAR, KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT. 4. MAHABALA SHETTY, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. VISHWANATHA SHETTY, HINDU, AGRICULTURIST, RESIDING AT MEEYAPADAVU OF MOODAMBAIL VILLAGE, P.O. MEEYAPADAVU, KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT. 5. THE DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA STATE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: scm THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------ W.P(c) No. 32444 of 2008 ------------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT Heard counsel for petitioners. 2. Petitioners are the respondents/Judgment debtor Nos. 2 and 4 in E.P. No.7 of 2006 in O.S. No.13 of 2002 of the Sub Court, Kasaragod. Petitioners are aggrieved by Exhibit P6, order dated 16/09/2008 reducing the upset price from Rs.14,00,000/- to Rs.13,50,000/- and directing sale of the property. Learned counsel contends that the objection preferred by the petitioners were not properly considered and that property is scheduled to be sold this day (4/11/2008). 3. I have gone through the records produced. It is seen that though petitioners vaguely contended that value of the property shown in the draft proclamation is not correct, they did not take any effective steps to substantiate that contention. Property had once come up for sale but as there was no bidders then, the upset price was reduced to Rs.13,50,000/- from Rs.14,00,000/-. It is pertinent to note that when W.P(c) No. 32444/ 2008 2 the property came up for sale on the earlier occasion, petitioners had no objection at all. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order under challenge requiring interference. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE scm