IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 24646 of 2009(O) --------------------------------------- EP.NO. 414/2007 IN OS.NO.321/2005 OF PRL.MUNSIFF COURT, PALAKKAD. .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- AMINA, W/O.K.K.MUHAMMED ASHARAF, AGED 38 YEARS, AMINA MANZIL, POOCHIRA, PUTHUPARIYRAM AMSOM, PALAKKAD TALUK. BY ADVS. MR.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR), MR.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH). RESPONDENT: ---------------------- YUSUFF, S/O.MAMMED CHERUVATHODI, CHALAVERA AMSOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/11/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.24646/2009-O: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE E.P. NO. 414/07 IN O.S. NO. 321/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, PALAKKAD DTD. 30/11/07. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER AS E.A. NO. 279/09 E.P. NO. 414/07 IN O.S. NO. 321/2005 SEEKING ADJOURNMENT OF THE SALE DTD. 26/06/09. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER SEEKING ADJOURNMENT OF THE SALE DTD. 27/07/09. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE SALE PROCLAMATION DRAWN E.P. NO. 414/07 IN O.S. NO. 321/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, PALAKKAD. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.24646 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the wife of the judgment debtor in E.P.No.414 of 2007 in O.S.No.321 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Munsiff Court, Palakkad. The decree executed in the above case was passed in a suit for money. In the execution proceedings an immovable property belonging to the judgment debtor was proceeded for sale. After proclamation was settled for sale, petitioner has approached this Court with the writ petition seeking a breathing time to avoid the sale of the property canvassing a case that she is prepared to discharge the entire decree debt. A conditional order was passed directing the petitioner to deposit part of the decree debt. It is reported that the orders passed by the court had been complied only in part, but, not in full. 2. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. 3. Petitioner in the writ petition is not a party to the execution proceedings. Sale of the property belonging to the W.P.(C).No.24646 of 2009 - O 2 judgment debtor, husband of the petitioner, is proceeded with for realisation of the decree debt as he had defaulted to satisfy the decree. Whatever be the close relationship of the petitioner with the judgment debtor under law, she is not competent to resist the execution of a validly obtained decree. The decree holder has every right to enjoy the fruits of the decree. There is no merit in the writ petition, and it is closed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-