IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2009 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 6627 of 2009(O) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN EA.216/2007 IN EP NO.66/2000 IN OS.68/1998 OF SUB COURT, VADAKARA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S. MUTHOOT VEHICLES AND ASSETS FINANCE LETD., KURIAN TOWERS BANERJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM, REP. BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER , JAYAN THANKAPPAN, S/O. THANKAPPAN, MUNDAKATHIL HOUSE, MUNDAKKAYAM P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANILAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. T.K. GANGADHARA MENON, S/O.P.K. MENON, THERAMPATTIL HOUSE, CHALAPPURAM, KOZHIKODE. 2. T.SASHINDRAN, S/O,. APPUKUTTAN, PEON, SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, MEENCHANDHA, KOZHIKODE. ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.6627 of 2009 -------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT The decree holder has filed this Writ Petition. An extent of 3.70 acres of land was sought to be sold for realisation of the decree debt. The judgment debtor prayed before the executing court to sell the property in plots having an extent of 25 cents each. The executing court rejected that prayer. The judgment debtor thereupon filed W.P.(C) No.35902 of 2003 which was disposed of as per Ext.P3 judgment dated 10th February 2005. This Court directed sale of the property in lots of 50 cents each. 2. Sale was attempted on several occasions. The executing court ordered sale of 50 cents fixing the upset price of Rs.2 lakhs. There was no bidders. After reducing the upset price, sale was attempted on several occasions. Still no bidders participated from 2006 onwards. At last, the decree holder filed E.A.No.216 of 2007 for passing an order to sell the property in one lot. The court below, by Ext.P4 order dated 6th December 2008, dismissed the application on the ground that the prayer WPC No.6627/2009 2 cannot be entertained in view of the judgment in W.P.(C) No.35902 of 2003. That order is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 3. In view of the specific directions issued in Ext.P3 judgment, I do not think that the court below can be faulted for rejecting the prayer made by the petitioner. It is not clear whether the court below attempted to sell the different plots one after the other so that if bidders were not ready to bid in respect of one lot, sale of the other lot could be tried. Therefore, I think it is necessary to have a fresh proclamation containing all the relevant details in respect of the different plots proposed to be sold in lots. It can also be clarified if there is no bidder for a particular plot, sale of the next plot could be attempted and so on. The learned counsel for the decree holder submitted that the decree holder intends to file an application under Rule 72A of Order 21 for leave to bid. If such an application is made, the court may consider the same and fix the reserve price in respect of each lot as provided in clause (b) of Sub Rule (2) of Rule 72A. Necessary steps for a fresh proclamation shall be taken by the WPC No.6627/2009 3 decree holder without delay. The judgment debtor would be entitled to be heard in the matter. But, he need not be permitted to get adjournments under the guise of objecting to the suggestion made by the decree holder. Any such request shall be turned down by the executing court, in view of the fact that the Execution Petition was filed in 2000 and only a pittance was paid by the judgment debtor during the long period of nine years. The executing court shall pass appropriate orders. The Writ Petition is dismissed, however, with the above observations and directions. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl