IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2010 / 30TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 22620 of 2010(O) -------------------------- EP 194/2007 IN OS.300/1989 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- ABRAHAM P.KORAH,AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.LATE MATHEW KORAH,PUTHUPARAMPIL, AREEPARAMPU PO,MANARCAUDU VILLAGE,KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD SRI.C.JOSEPH JOHNY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,DEVAGIRI BRANCH,KOTTAYAM-686001. 2. P.K.SHAJIMON,S/O.MATHEW KORAH, PUTHUPPARAMBIL,AREEPPARAMBU PO, KOTTAYAM -686501. 3. SOSAMMA KORAH,W/O. MATHEW KORAH, PUTHUPPARAMBIL,AREEPPARAMBU PO, KOTTAYAM -686501. 4. P.K.MATHEW,S/O. MATHEW KORAH, PUTHUPPARAMBIL,AREEPPARAMBU PO, KOTTAYAM -686501. 5. P.K.JACOBKUTTY,S/O. MATHEW KORAH, PUTHUPPARAMBIL,AREEPPARAMBU PO, KOTTAYAM -686501. 6. MARIAMMA,W/O.ABRAHAM ANTHRAYOSE, AMBATTU VEEDU , PANGADA PO,KOTTAYAM -686502. 7. ABRAHAM,S/O.ABRAHAM ANTHRAYOSE, AMBATTU VEEDU ,KOOROPADA,KOTTAYAM -686502. 8. JOHN,S/O.ABRAHAM ANTHRAYOSE, AMBATTU VEEDU , PANGADA PO,KOTTAYAM -686502. 9. KURIAN,S/O.ABRAHAM ANTHRAYOSE, AMBATTU VEEDU , PANGADA PO,KOTTAYAM -686502. 10. VARGHESE,S/O.ABRAHAM ANTHRAYOSE, AMBATTU VEEDU , PANGADA PO,KOTTAYAM -686502. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.22620 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of July, 2010. JUDGMENT This Writ Petition is at the instance of judgment debtor in E.P.No.194 of 2007 in O.S.No.300 of 1989 of the court of learned Principal Sub Judge, Kottayam. Though there are several grounds urged in the Writ Petition including a challenge to the order of executing court directing delivery of property on the ground that application for delivery (E.A.No.121 of 2010) is filed beyond one year from the date of confirmation of sale, at the time of hearing learned counsel for petitioner has confined his contention to one point, waiving all other contentions that petitioner, if given breathing time is prepared to pay entire amount due to respondent No.1 and get the sale deed executed in his favour at his expense. Learned counsel has requested three months time for the said purposes. I have heard learned counsel for respondent No.1 in that regard. Learned counsel states that the matter has to be decided by respondent No.1 but he has no objection in this Court granting two months time to effect delivery of property. As I understand from learned counsel for respondent No.1 amount now due (in case petitioner is permitted to discharge the liability) is something not less than Rs.18 lakhs. It would appear that property which is sold and in respect of which sale certificate was issued to respondent No.1 is situated at Manarcadu, in an important part of that town. Having regard to the facts and WP(C) No.22620/2010 2 circumstances of the case, I consider it appropriate to give parties some time for a negotiation of the matter and settle the dispute. In the circumstances and also taking into account amount payable by petitioner I am inclined to grant time to petitioner till 30.10.2010. In the meantime it will be open to parties to try a negotiation and reach appropriate settlement. Resultantly, this Writ Petition is disposed of in the following lines: i. Proceeding for delivery of property pursuant to the order on E.A.No.121 of 2010 in E.P.No.194 of 2007 in O.S.No.300 of 1989 of the court of learned Principal Sub Judge, Kottayam will stand adjourned to a day after 30.10.2010. ii. In the meantime it is open to parties to try for a settlement by negotiation. iii. In case there is no settlement by paying the amount due under the decree to respondent No.1 on or before 30.10.2010 it will be open to respondent No.1 to proceed with E.A.No.121 of 2010 and take delivery of property. WP(C) No.22620/2010 3 iv. It is made clear that petitioner shall not make any claim or objection on any ground whatsoever regarding delivery of property in case no settlement is reached and respondent No.1 seeks delivery of property. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks