IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2011 / 24TH POUSHA 1932 OP(C).No. 157 of 2011(O) ------------------------------------ EP.28/2007 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT,KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONERS -------------------- 1. SIDA, RUBBER GOODS TRAINING CENTRE, REPRESENTED BY IT PRESIDENT AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, GEORGE THOMAS, KOOVAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM. 2. GEORGE THOMAS, PRESIDENT AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, SIDA, RUBBER GOODS TRAINING CENTRE, KOOVAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. OIKO CREDIT ECUMENICAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, REPRESENTED BY ITS INDIA REGIONAL MANAGER, MRS.SUVARNA RANI GARIDAM, NO.197, PRASANNAN NAGAR, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD-500001. 2. SIDA RUBBER GOODS TRAINING CENTRE, REPRESENTED BY ITS TREASURER, SABU JOSEPH, KOVAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM-686 518. 3. SABU JOSEPH, TREASURER, SIDA RUBBER GOODS TRAINING CENTRE, KOVAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM- 686 518. 4. P.C.THOMAS, KUNNACKATTU HOUSE, ERUMELY, KOTTAYAM- 686 509. 5. THOMAS JOSEPH, THOOMKUZHY, EDAKUNNAM, KOTTAYAM- 686 001. 6. SIBY JOSEPH, THOOMKUZHY, EDAKUNNAM, KOTTAYAM-686 001. sts OPC.NO.157/2011 7. GEORGE JOSEPH, THOOMKUZHY, EDAKUNNAM, KOTTAYAM-686 001. 8. SEBASTIAN THOMAS, KALLAM KUNNEL, KOOVAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM-686 518. 9. ANNAMMA JOSEPH, SAWRIAMKUZHYIL, KOOVAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM-686 518. R1 BY DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------ O.P(C).No.157 OF 2011 ------------------------------ Dated this the 14 th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT The judgment debtors 1 and 3 in E.P.No.28 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Additional District Judge, Kottayam challenge the order dated 7 th December, 2010 passed by the court below, by which the contentions put forward by the petitioners were rejected and the prayer made by the petitioners for allowing them to conduct private sale of the property as provided under Rule 83 of Order 21 of Civil Procedure Code was also rejected. 2. As per the Arbitration Award dated 21.12.2005, the first respondent was granted an award for realisation of Rs.2.5 Crores from the petitioners and others. The award was put in execution in the year 2007. During the pendency of the execution proceedings, a settlement was arrived O.P(C).No.157 OF 2011 2 at between the decree holder and the judgment debtors as evidenced by Ext.P2 dated 27.2.2010. It was agreed between the parties that the first respondent would be paid a sum of Rs.2.20 Crores in full and final settlement of the award on or before 1 st July of 2010. There were other stipulations as to the payment of different amounts at different intervals. The decree holder also agreed to release a portion of the attached property to enable the judgment debtors to sell the same and pay the amount. 3. It is submitted that the property which was released from attachment was sold by the petitioners. A sum of Rs.45 lakhs was paid to the decree holder. There is considerable dispute as to the amount for which the property was sold. It is not necessary to decide that question in this Original Petition. 4. The last date for payment as per the terms O.P(C).No.157 OF 2011 3 of the agreement expired on 1 st July, 2010. The Execution Petition was proceeded with by the decree holder. Two items of immovable properties were sought to be sold. A draft sale proclamation was issued. Time was granted to the judgment debtors to file objections. The petitioners filed objections. The two items of properties sought to be sold are having an extent of 1 Acre 2 cents and 21 cents respectively. The decree holder valued those items at Rs.1.25 Crores and 50 lakhs respectively. The petitioners contended that the actual value of the property is much more. A contention was raised by the petitioners that an agreement was executed with a stranger to sell 10 cents of land at the rate of Rs.1.75 lakhs per cent. 5. The petitioners also filed E.A.No.177 of 2010 under Rule 83 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure for permission for private sale. 6. In the objections to the draft sale O.P(C).No.157 OF 2011 4 proclamation, the petitioners contended that if the properties sought to be sold are sold in private sale dividing it into convenient plots, the petitioners would be able to realise a sum of Rs.2 lakhs per cent of land. 7. All the contentions put forward by the parties were considered by the Executing Court. It was found by the Executing Court that the contentions put forward by the petitioners were not bonafide. However, the petitioners were permitted to bring to the notice of the court any offer for sale of the entire property sought to be sold at any point of time before the court auction sale, so that the question of private sale of those items could be considered. The court below left the matter in a flexible state of affairs, so that there would be no heart burn to the petitioners. The order was passed by the court below on 7 th December, 2010. Now, the properties are sought to be sold in public auction on 17.1.2011. O.P(C).No.157 OF 2011 5 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that if six months' time is granted, the petitioners would be able to pay the entire amount to the decree holder. The learned counsel appearing for the decree holder opposed the suggestion. He submitted that maximum leniency was shown to the petitioners and Rs.30 lakhs was waived from the principal amount. The decree holder also agreed to release an extent of 4 Acres of land from the property attached which enabled the petitioners to sell the same. All possible accommodation was given to the petitioners by the decree holder, contended the counsel. 9. The court below directed to incorporate in the sale proclamation the value of the property as suggested by the decree holder as well as by the judgment debtors. The objection in that regard was considered and the interests of the judgment debtors were safeguarded. As stated earlier, the court below afforded an opportunity to the judgment O.P(C).No.157 OF 2011 6 debtors to procure prospective purchasers and to submit the details to the court below before the date of sale. 10. The order passed by the court below is legal and proper. There is no jurisdictional error or any error of law in the order impugned. No grounds are made out for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Original Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms