IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2008 / 15TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 23208 of 2008(K) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN EP.104/07 IN OS.46/1999 of PRL.SUB COURT,IRINJALAKUDA .................... PETITIONER: ------------ SARADA, AGED 50, W/O.KADUNGADAN MANILAL NEDUMBAL DESOM, THOTTIPAL VILLAGE MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENTS: ------------- DARSANA KURIES AND LOANS (P) LTD., IRINJALAKUDA, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTORO PO. ANTONY, S/O.PULLUKARA OUSEPH, IRINJALAKUDA PO., THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.M.N.UNNIKRISHNAN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT 1: A TRUE COPY OF THE E P NO 104/07 IN O.S. NO.46/99 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA DATED 9-3-2007. EXHIBIT 2: A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN TO THE RULE 66 NOTICE DATED 30-10-2007. EXHIBIT 3: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT IRINJALAKUDA IN E P NO.10/07 IN O.S. NO.46 DATED 4-6-2008. /TRUE COPY/ p.a. to Judge. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 23208 of 2008 -------------------------------------------- Dated this 6th day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging Ext.P3 order passed by Sub Court, Irinjalakuda in E P No.104 of 2007 in O.S.No.46 of 1999 directing sale of the attached property on 7.8.2008. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and respondent were heard. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that subsequent to the filing of the writ petition Rs.1,00,000/- was paid to the decree holder on 30.07.2008. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent also admitted that fact. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that petitioner may be granted six months time to pay the entire decree debt in six equal instalments. Learned counsel appearing for the decree holder/ respondent submitted that the suit was filed in 1999 and petitioner was given sufficient time to pay the decree debt and if instalment facilitiy is given, there should be a default clause. 5. In such circumstances, writ petition is disposed, directing the executing Court to adjourn the sale posted on 7-08-2008. The petitioner is permitted to pay the balance decree debt in 6 equal wpc/23208/2008 2 monthly instalments, the first monthly instalment being due on 1.9.2008. If the petitioner commits default in payment of two consecutive instalments, decree holder is entitled to seek sale of the property, in which event, executing Court shall direct sale of the property. Writ petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE bps