IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 17TH OCTOBER 2011 / 25TH ASWINA 1933 OP(C).No. 2373 of 2011(O) --------------------------------- OS.363/2006 of II ADDL.M.C.,NEYYATTINKARA .................... PETITIONER -------------- G.VELAYUDHAN NAIR, KAILASAM, KNRA, 31A, PIPEMOODU, KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-3. BY ADVS. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR SRI.T.K.ANANDA KRISHNAN SRI.JELSON J.EDAMPADAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- R.SREEKANTAN THAMPI, JAYASREE SADANAM, VENKANNI DESOM, KOLLAMCODE VILLAGE AND NOW PRACTICING AS ADVOCATE IN S.R.LAW CHAMBERS, NEYYATTINKARA - 695 532. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.SREEKANTH S.NAIR THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs O.P.(C). NO.2373/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE EXECUTION PETITION NO.243/2007 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT. P2: COPY OF THE SCHEDULE OF THE PROPERTY ATTACHED DATED 27/02/2007. P3: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND HIS SON IN LAW, SANTHOSH KUMAR ON 15/11/2006. P4: COPY OF THE SALE DEED. P5: COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE AMIN BEFORE THE SECOND ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, NEYYATTINKARA ON 20/03/2009. P6: COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE RESPONDENT ON 09/04/2010. P7: COPY OF THE EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.281/2009 IN E.P. NO.243/07 IN O.S.363/2006. P8: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19/12/2009 IN E.A. NO.281/2009 IN E.P. NO.243/2007 IN O.S.363/2006. P9: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL AS A.S. NO.38/2010 FILED BY SANTHOSH KUMAR BEFORE THE SUB COURT, NEYYATTINKARA. P10: COPY OF THE E.A.1173/2010 IN E.P. NO.243/2007 IN O.S.363/2006. P11: COPY OF THE 'B' DIARY IN E.P. NO.243/2007 IN O.S. NO.363/2006. P12: COPY OF THE CERTIFIED COPY THE ORDER DATED 18/03/2011 OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF, NEYYATTINKARA. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.2373 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of October, 2011. JUDGMENT This Original Petition is in challenge of Ext.P12, order on E.A.No.1173 of 2010 in E.P.No.243 of 2007 in O.S.No.363 of 2006 of the court of learned Additional Munsiff-II, Neyyattinkara refusing to review the order confirming sale of property. Learned Munsiff confirmed the sale following Ext.P8, order whereby an application to set aside sale filed by the son-in-law of petitioner was dismissed. According to the petitioner, property was attached by the respondent before judgment on 12.03.2007 but he had sold the property to his son-in-law on 01.03.2007. It is thereon that the son-in-law filed application to set aside sale which ended in Ext.P8, order. 2. Learned counsel submitted that if not E.A.No.1173 of 2010, it was open to the petitioner to file application under Sec.47 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”) challenging the court sale on the ground that no notice under Rule 66 of Order XXI of the Code was served on petitioner and that amounted to a pre-sale illegality. Learned counsel for respondent contended that there was proper service of notice under Rule 66 of Order XXI of the Code and since petitioner claimed that he has sold the property to his son- in-law on 01.03.2007 who has challenged Ext.P8, order in appeal, a claim under Sec.47 of the Code also cannot stand. I leave the question – whether petitioner OP(C) No.2373/2011 2 can file an application under Sec.47 of the Code and if filed, what would be its fate – for consideration by the trial court in case any such application is preferred. 3. Presently I am concerned with Ext.P12, order whereby learned Munsiff has refused to review the order confirming sale of the property. Indisputably there was no application filed by the petitioner to set aside the sale. In that situation, there was no question of the executing court reviewing the order confirming sale of the property. Viewed in that line, I do not find reason to interfere with Ext.P12, order. Original Petition is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks