IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2010 / 2ND ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).NO. 19427 OF 2010(O) -------------------------------------------- E.P. NO.600 OF 2003 IN OS.63/2000 OF II ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, ,NEYYATTINKARA .................... PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- RMAKRISHNAN, S/O.NARAYANA PANICKER, MURUKAVILASOM BUNGLOW, POTTAKUZHI, PORANNOOR DESOM CHENKAL VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, PIN-695132. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.K.SATHEESH KUMAR SRI.P.P.BIJU SRI.K.S.PRAVEEN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. CHANDRIKA, W/O.MADHUSOODANAN, OORALIVILAKATH VEEDU, PORANNOOR DESOM, CHENKAL VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, PIN-695132. 2. MANOJ, S/O.MADHUSOODAN, OORALIVILAKATH VEEDU, PORANNOOR DESOM, CHENKAL VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, PIN-695132. 3. MONISHA, D/O.MADHUSOODAN, OORALIVILAKATH VEEDU, PORANNOOR DESOM, CHENKAL VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK,PIN-695132. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== W.P(C) No.19427 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T Exhibit P1, order dated 02.03.2010 passed by the executing court is under challenge in this Writ Petition at the instance of judgment debtor. His contention is that in view of Order XXI Rule 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure it was not necessary for the executing court to have proclaimed for sale of the entire half share of petitioner in the property brought up for sale. Learned counsel contends that Ext.B1 and the certificate of valuation produced in the executing court would show that value of entire property is around Rs.12.75 lakhs (referred to in the order under challenge as Rs.12.75). It is pointed out that notwithstanding the above, upset price of the half share of petitioner's share in the property was fixed as Rs.60,000/- as against the amount due to respondents (Rs.33,150/- (with future interest and costs). At the time of hearing learned counsel has confined his argument to grant of installment facility for discharge of the decree debt. Having regard to the circumstances stated I am inclined to keep in abeyance the proposed sale for a period of forty five (45) days W.P(C) No.19427 of 2010 -: 2 :- from this day but on conditions. Resultantly, this Writ Petition is disposed of in the following lines: (a) Sale of the property scheduled to be held pursuant to Ext.P1, order will stand adjourned to a day after forty five (45) days from this day subject to the following conditions: (i) Petitioner filed an affidavit in the executing court before 29.06.2010 waiving fresh proclamation for such sale. (ii) Petitioner deposited in the executing court Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) for payment to the respondents-decree holders within one month from this day. (iii) In case any of the above conditions is not complied it will be open to the executing court to proceed with sale of the property pursuant to Ext.P1, order notwithstanding the time granted hereby. (b) I make it clear that it will be open to the petitioner to request the executing court for installment facility for payment of W.P(C) No.19427 of 2010 -: 3 :- balance amount due under the decree and if any such request is made, the executing court shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders as provided under law after hearing counsel for respondents also. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv