IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 18TH MAY 2010 / 28TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 658 of 2010(O) ------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER IN EA 295/2009 IN EP 95/2004 IN OS.101/2000 of SUB COURT, HOSDRUG .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.V.RAGHAVAN, S/O.KALLYANI AMMA, AGED 62 YEARS, RESIDING NEAR DINESH BHAVAN, CHERUVATHUR, CHERUVATHUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR SMT.VANDANA MENON SMT.ANJU P.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- (*) V.NARAYANAN, S/O.KUNHAPPA, RESIDING NEAR DINESH BHAVAN, CHERUVATHUR, CHERUVATHUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK. (DIED. LRS IMPLEADED) ADDL.R2 TO R6: 2. K.CHANDRAMATHI, AGED 60 YEARS, W/O.V.NARAYANAN, RESIDING NEAR DINESH BHAVAN, CHERUVATHUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASRAGODE DISTRICT. 3. V. BEENA, AGED 44 YEARS, D/O.V.NARAYANAN, RESIDING NEAR DINESH BHAVAN, CHERUVATHUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASRAGODE DISTRICT. 4. V. SHAJI, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.V.NARAYANAN, RESIDING NEAR DINESH BHAVAN, CHERUVATHUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASRAGODE DISTRICT. 5. V. BINDU, AGED 38 YEARS, D/O.V.NARAYANAN, RESIDING NEAR DINESH BHAVAN, CHERUVATHUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASRAGODE DISTRICT. WP(C0 NO.658/2010 2 6. V. SHIBU, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.V.NARAYANAN, RESIDING NEAR DINESH BHAVAN, CHERUVATHUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASRAGODE DISTRICT. (*)LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF DECEASED R1 ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R2 TO R6 AS PER ORDER DATED 10.3.2010 IN IA NO.3199/2010 IN WP(C) NO.658/2010. ADV. SRI.JAWAHAR JOSE FOR R2 TO R6 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO.658/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF EA NO.295/2009 IN EP NO.95/2004 IN OS NO.101/2000 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, HOSDURG EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER IN EA NO.295/2009 IN EP 95/2004 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN EA NO.295/2009 IN EP NO.95 OF 2004 IN OS 101/2000 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, HOSDURG DATED 2.12.2009 //TRUE COPY// THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.658 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of May, 2010. JUDGMENT Respondent has obtained a decree for realisation of Rs.1,30,521/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum and cost. Since petitioner did not pay that amount respondent put the decree in execution and it is not disputed that five cents and house belonging to the petitioner has been brought up for sale and proclaimed to be sold for the amount due under the decree. That order is under challenge in this proceeding. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that given some time petitioner is prepared to discharge the liability. It is his contention that it was not necessary to bring the entire property for sale and that sale of two cents out of the said property is sufficient to discharge the decree debt. Learned counsel for respondent would submit that the property has been offered by petitioner himself as security for realisation of the amount due and that sale of a portion of the property is not possible since the house is situated at the middle of the five cents. 2. I have heard counsel on both sides and having gone through the matters placed before me I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the executing court ordering sale of the property. However, having heard counsel for petitioner and hearing difficulties of the petitioner expressed by learned counsel I am inclined to grant some time to the petitioner to discharge the liability particularly WP(C) No.658/2010 2 since it is not disputed that a sum of Rs.35,000/- has now been paid by the petitioner to the respondent in two instalments. Resultantly this Writ Petition is disposed of in the following lines: i. Petitioner is granted one month's time from this day to deposit in the executing court Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) towards decree debt payable to the respondent. ii. Balance amount due under the decree shall be deposited by the petitioner in the executing court in seven monthly installments beginning from 17.06.2010. iii. It is made clear that in case petitioner commits two defaults in deposit of the amount as aforesaid, it will be open to the executing court to proceed with the sale of property pursuant to the order under challenge. iv. Petitioner shall, within two weeks from this day file a statement in the executing court waiving fresh proclamation for sale of the property during the said period of eight months from today. If the said condition is violated, executing court can proceed with the sale of the property pursuant to the order impugned. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks