IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2010 / 21ST SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 25449 of 2010(O) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN EP 465/07 IN OS.404/2002 of ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, NORTH PARAVUR .................... PETITIONER(S)/JUDGMENT DEBTOR/1ST DEFENDANT: --------------- THAMPI SEBASTIAN, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.LATE N.S.GEORGE, NEISSERY HOUSE, THOTTAKKATTUKARA, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.H.HAMZA ROWTHER SRI.V.K.PEERMOHAMED KHAN SRI.H.SUNIL RESPONDENT(S)/DECREE HOLDER/PLAINTIFF: --------------- THE FEDERAL BANK LIMITED, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, BANK JUNCTION BRANCH, ALUVA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.25449 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of August, 2010. JUDGMENT Notice to respondent is dispensed with in view of the order I am proposing to pass in this Writ Petition. 2. Petitioner, judgment debtor No.1 in E.P.No.465 of 2007 in O.S.No.404 of 2002 of the Court of Learned Sub Judge, North Paravur challenges Ext.P4, sale notice on the ground of inadequacy of land value stated therein. Petitioner states that he did not get notice under Order XXI Rule 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”). Learned counsel states that 71 cents of land which is valued more than Rs.25 lakhs is proposed to be sold for a paltry sum of Rs.4,47,000/-. According to the learned counsel Ext.P4, sale notice is invalid since Order XXI Rule 66 of the Code has not been complied with. 3. If petitioner has a contention that he did not get notice under Order XXI Rule 66 of the Code, his remedy is before executing court. It is also open to him to challenge Ext.P4, sale notice in case it is issued without notice to him and without compliance of Order XXI Rule 66 of the Code. Having regard to the facts and circumstances when the petitioner has the above options before him I do not find reason to interfere with Ext.P4, sale notice at this stage. I leave open the contentions of petitioner as to the validity of Ext.P4. WP(C) No.25449/2010 2 4. Learned counsel states that more than Rupees Five lakhs is due to respondent and that Ext.P3, representation has been made to the respondent seeking settlement of the dispute since according to the petitioner certain amounts are due to him also. Learned counsel states that sale of the property is scheduled to be held on 13.08.2010 and that the sale may be adjourned so that petitioner will get opportunity to settle the dispute with the respondent. Having regard to the circumstances stated I am inclined to give some time to the petitioner. Resultantly this Writ Petition is disposed of in the following lines: i. It is directed that the sale of property pursuant to Ext.P4, sale notice scheduled to be held on 13.08.2010 shall be adjourned to a day after two months from this day subject to the following conditions: (a) Petitioner, without prejudice to his other contentions if any in the matter files affidavit in the executing court waiving fresh proclamation for such sale. (b) Petitioner shall deposit in the executing court for payment to respondent Rupees one lakh only within one month from this day . WP(C) No.25449/2010 3 ii. It is made clear that it will be open to the petitioner to approach the executing court and seek redressal of his grievance as to the alleged insufficiency of land value stated in Ext.P4, if he is otherwise entitled to that course. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks