IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2010 / 21ST JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).NO. 14874 OF 2010(O) ---------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN EA 161/2008 IN EP.63/2008 OF SUB COURT, HOSDRUG .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. SUKUMARAN PALLIKKI, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.KARICHI AMMA,RESIDING AT PUNGAMCHAL, WEST ELERI VILLAGE,HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. KARICHI AMMA,AGED 74 YEARS, D/O.LAKSHMI AMMA,RESIDING AT PUNGAMCHAL, WEST ELERI VILLAGE,HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.HARISH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. NILESHWAR BLOCK CO-OP.HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.,NELESHWAR, NILEHWAR P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT.REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL),KASARAGOD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX --------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: ---------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN E.A. NO.161 OF 2008 IN E.P. NO.63 OF 2008. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCLAMATION OF SALE ISSUED IN E.A. NO.89 OF 20010 IN E.P. NO.63 OF 2008 OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, HOSDURG DATED 22.3.2010. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE OTS APPLICATION DATED 20.4.2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: ----------------------------------- NIL TRUE COPY THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== W.P(C) No.14874 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 11th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are judgment debtors in E.P. No.63 of 2008 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Hosdurg. They suffered an award for payment of money to respondent No.1 and in execution of that award property of petitioner No.1 was brought up for sale. Respondent No.1 filed E.A.No.161 of 2008 to fix upset price for the property. Petitioners filed counter stating that property is valued at Rs.6,50,000/- and that amount may be fixed as upset price. It is seen from Ext.P2, sale notice that upset price was fixed at Rs.2,60,000/-. That order is under challenge in this Writ Petition. At the time of hearing learned counsel for petitioners stated that pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 13.05.2010 petitioners have deposited Rs.25,000/- in the executing court and that petitioners may be permitted to pay the balance amount in ten monthly installments. Learned counsel also made a request that respondent No.1 may be directed to consider Ext.P3, representation made before it. I have heard learned counsel for respondents. Respondent No.1 is not agreeable to grant that much W.P(C) No.14874 of 2010 -: 2 :- time as requested by the petitioners. 2. Amount payable as per the sale proclamation is Rs.1,36,220/-. It is not disputed that petitioners have deposited Rs.25,000/- in the executing court pursuant to the order of this Court. Having regard to the difficulties expressed by petitioners I am inclined to permit petitioners to pay balance amount due under the decree in eight equal monthly installments beginning from 01.07.2010. 3. So far as Ext.P3, representation made by the petitioners is concerned it is open to respondent No.1 to consider the same and take appropriate decision. Resultantly, Writ Petition is disposed of in the following lines: (i) Petitioners are permitted to pay the balance amount due under the decree in eight equal monthly installments beginning from 01.07.2010. (ii) In case of default in payment of any two installments it will be open to respondent No.1 to proceed with the execution pursuant to Ext.P2, sale proclamation. (iii) If the property has already been proclaimed for sale, petitioners shall file an affidavit W.P(C) No.14874 of 2010 -: 3 :- in the executing court within two weeks from this day waiving fresh proclamation for sale of the property. (iv) In case petitioners did not discharge the liability within the aforesaid period or default as above stated is committed, it will be open to respondent No.1 to proceed with execution of the decree. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv