IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2010 / 7TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).NO. 21599 OF 2010(O) ---------------------------------------- EP.115/2008 OF SUB COURT, TIRUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------------- AMASSERY KUNJIMARAKKAR, S/O. AMASSERY MOIDUNNI, AMASSERY HOUSE, KUTTIPALA DESOM, PONNANI, MALAPPURAM, REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, MRS. SULAIKHA MARAKKAR, AGED 53, W/O. KUNJI MARAKKAR, AMASSERY HOUSE, KUTTIPPALAM AMSOM DESOM, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN SRI.P.G.SURESH SRI.P.K.KHALEEMUDHEEN SMT.K.VIDYA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ THAJUNISSA ALIYAKUNJU, D/O. NABEESA BEEVI, AKBAR MANZIL, PARAMBIL PALAM, ANDOORKONAM DESOM, ANDOORKONAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 584. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX --------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: ---------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE AUCTION NOTICE UNDER ORDER 21 RULE 66 IN NEXUS WITH THE PROPERTY SITUATED IN R.S. NO.232/8 OF THE PONNANI TALUK. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE WEBSITE INFORMATION FROM THE SITE ADDRESS HTTP.//IGR.KERALA.GOV.IN/FAIRVALUESEARCH.ASPX, REGARDING THE FAIR VALUE OF THE PROPERTY SITUATED IN R.S.NO.232/8 OF PONNANI TALUK. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: ----------------------------------- NIL TRUE COPY THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== W.P(C) No.21599 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 29th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T Judgment debtor in E.P. No.115 of 2008 in O.S. No.134 of 2002 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Attingal challenges Ext.P1, sale notice issued under Order XXI Rule 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”) on the ground that property is proposed to be sold for a grossly inadequate price and that executing court has not considered whether sale of a portion of the property is sufficient to satisfy the decree debt. 2. It is not disputed that petitioner has suffered a decree for payment of money to respondent and that decree has been put into execution. Exhibit P1 is the sale notice proposing to conduct sale on 12.7.2009. Petitioner has produced Ext.P2 to show fair value of the land prescribed by State Government for the area where property proposed to be sold is situated. Learned counsel contends that the value of property fixed is grossly inadequate. It is also contented that executing court has not applied its mind in ascertaining whether a portion of the property is sufficient to W.P(C) No.21599 of 2010 -: 2 :- satisfy the decree debt. According to the counsel there is total non-compliance with Order XXI Rule 64 of the Code which affected jurisdiction of the executing court to proceed with sale of property. Learned counsel has referred to the decisions in Gnam Das v. Paulin Moraes (1998 [2] KLT 88) and Ambati Narasayya v. M.Subba Rao and Another ([1989] 2 Suppl. SCC 693). 3. If the stage for preferring objection to the proclamation is not over it is open to the petitioner to urge all these contentions before the executing court. If there is an order of sale as learned counsel put it without complying with Rule 64 of Order XXI of the Code it is open to the petitioner to seek review of the order if law permits him to do so. In case sale is conducted in violation of Order XXI Rule 64 of the Code it is also open to the petitioner to challenge the same on appropriate grounds as available to him. It is not as if in respect of every step taken by the executing court this Court has to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution. In the circumstances I do not find reason to interfere with Ext.P1. W.P(C) No.21599 of 2010 -: 3 :- Resultantly, Writ Petition is closed but without prejudice to the right of petitioner to seek appropriate remedy as stated above. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv