IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2011 / 4TH BHADRA 1933 OP(C).No. 1686 of 2011(O) -------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED IN EPNO. 540/2009 IN OS.NO. 997/2006 of SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER -------------------- RAVIKUMAR, AGED 50, S/O.THACHAMBILLI RAMAN, KAIPPILLY DESOM, VELUTHUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- ANTO, S/O.KAIMADATHIL ANTHONY, PARAKAT VILLAGE DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK.690 001 BY ADV. SRI.V.BINOY RAM THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THEFOLLOWING: sts OP(C)NO.1686/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS.NO.997/06 DATED 26/9/06 ON THE FILES OF THE SUB COURT, THRISSUR. P2 COPY OF THE INTERIM INJUNCTION ORDER PASSED IN IA NO.60/04 IN RSA NO.24/04 DATED 14/1/04 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. P3 COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN IN EP NO.540/09 IN OS NO.997/06 DATED 25/2/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, THRISSUR. P4 COPY OF THE SALE PROCLAMATION ISSUED BY THE SUB COURT, THRISSUR IN EP NO.540 OF 2009 IN OS NO.997 OF 2006 DATED 27/5/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, THRISSUR. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.1686 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of August, 2011. JUDGMENT Judgment debtor in E.P.No.540 of 2009 in O.S.No.997 of 2006 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Thrissur is the petitioner, challenging Ext.P4, sale proclamation schedule on the ground that sale of entire 20 cents is not required to satisfy the decree. It is contended that as per Ext.P4, the amount payable is only `1,61,038/- and hence the entire 20 cents is not required to be sold. 2. Learned counsel for respondent/decree holder submitted that no evidence was let in by the petitioner to show that sale of a portion of the property is sufficient to satisfy the decree debt. It is contended that even the condition imposed by this Court in the order dated 25.05.2011 has not been complied. 3. Having heard both sides I find that there is no material on record to conclude that sale of a portion of the property is sufficient to satisfy the decree debt. Hence I do not find reason to interfere with Ext.P4. But I am inclined to consider the request for permission to pay the amount due in installments. OP(C) No.1686/2011 2 4. Though this Court directed in the order dated 25.05.2011 that petitioner shall deposit `50,000/- within three weeks and another sum of `50,000/- within one month thereafter, that order has not been complied. However having heard counsel on both sides I am inclined to grant time to the petitioner to pay the amount payable as per the decree in installments. Resultantly this Original Petition is disposed of allowing petitioner to pay/deposit the amount due under the decree in installments as stated hereunder: (a) Petitioner shall deposit in the executing court `50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) within two weeks from this day for payment to the respondent. (b) Petitioner shall deposit the balance amount due under the decree in six (6) equal monthly installments beginning from 01.10.2011 provided that by the last installment the entire amount shall be paid. (c) Payment/deposit in the executing court shall be made on or before the 5th of each month. If that day happens to be a holiday, such payment/deposit shall be made on the next working day. OP(C) No.1686/2011 3 (d) If the property is scheduled for sale, petitioner shall file affidavit in the executing court before the time scheduled for sale waiving fresh proclamation for such sale. (e) In case of default in payment of any two installments or non-filing of the affidavit as above stated, it will be open to the executing court to proceed with execution pursuant to Ext.P4. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks