IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2009 / 12TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 5668 of 2009(O) AGAINST THE ORDER IN EP 127/2006 IN OS.122/2004 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, PALAKKAD PETITIONER: --------------- K.G.SAKTHIDHARAN, S/O.GANGADHARAN, ATHIKUZHI, CHITTUR VILLAGE CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. SRI.LIJU. M.P RESPONDENT: --------------- SANKARANARAYANA MENON, S/O.DAKSHAYANI AMMA, PULLODE VEEDU, GOPALA MANDIRAM, ERIMAYOOR PO., ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD. ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.8.2005 PASSED IN O.S.NO.122/2004 ON THE FILE OF SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, PALAKKAD. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE DATED 18.8.2005 PASSED IN O.S.NO.122/2004 ON THE FILE OF SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, PALAKKAD. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF E.P.NO.127/2006 IN O.S.NO.122/2004 ON THE FILE OF SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, PALAKKAD. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT FILED TO EXT.P3. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT FILED TO ORDER XXI RULE 66 NOTICE IN E.-P.NO.127/2006 IN O.S.NO.122/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, PALAKKAD. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION VIZ. E.A.NO.82/2009 FILED IN E.P.NO.127/2006 IN O.S.NO.122/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, PALAKKAD. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF SALE PROCLAMATION. EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN EA.NO.84/2009 IN EP.NO.127/2006 IN O.S.NO.122/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, PALAKKAD. EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF E.A.NO.84/2009 IN EP.NO.127/2006 IN O.S.NO.122/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, PALAKKAD. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT OF THE RESPONDENT IN E.A.NO.82/2009. //TRUE COPY// AHZ/ K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) NO. 5668 OF 2009 O ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 2nd April, 2009 JUDGMENT The judgment debtor in O.S.No.122 of 2004, on the file of the Sub Court, Palakkad, is the writ petitioner. The decree is for payment of money. The immovable property belonging to the petitioner was sought to be sold for realisation of a sum of Rs.6,58,516/- as on 2.2.2009. The writ petitioner filed objections to the draft sale proclamation and contended that it is not necessary to sell the entire extent of land and that the property can be directed to be sold in lots. The executing court passed an order for sale. The petitioner filed Ext.P6 application (E.A.No.82 of 2009) to review that order. It is stated in the application for review that the Execution Petition was posted on 1.11.2008 for return of Rule 66 notice. On that day, there was no sitting and the case was adjourned to 7.1.2009. Since 7.1.2009 was declared as a holiday, the case was taken up on the next day and the sale was ordered. Ext.P6 Review Petition is pending. Meanwhile, the property was proclaimed for sale on 7.2.2009. The sale was, thereafter, adjourned to 24.2.2009. The W.P.(C) NO.5668 OF 2009 :: 2 :: Writ Petition was filed on 19.2.2009. The prayer in the Writ Petition is to direct the executing court to pass orders on the petitions filed by the petitioner including Ext.P6 Review Petition before proceeding to sell the decree schedule property. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent/decree holder submitted that the decree is a charge decree and, therefore, the contention raised by the judgment debtor that only a portion of the property should be sold, is unsustainable. It is also contended that the judgment debtor was trying to protract the execution proceedings. It is pointed out that the Execution Petition was filed in 2006 and even now the sale could not be held because of the dilatory tactics adopted by the judgment debtor. 3. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to pay off the entire decree amount in six monthly instalments. Learned counsel appearing for the decree holder submitted that the decree holder has no objection to the same, provided, the petitioner complies with the promise. W.P.(C) NO.5668 OF 2009 :: 3 :: In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of as follows: a) The petitioner shall pay the decree amount in six monthly instalments. The first five monthly instalments shall be at the rate of Rs.One lakh. The petitioner shall pay the entire balance amount due as the final instalment. b) It is agreed that since the courts are closing for summer holidays, the first two instalments shall be paid together on or before 5.6.2009 and the balance instalments shall be paid on or before 5th of the succeeding months. c) It is also agreed that if default is committed in payment of any of the two instalments, the entire balance decree amount shall become due and the execution can be proceeded with for realisation of that amount. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/