IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 23RD AUGUST 2011 / 1ST BHADRA 1933 OP(C).No. 2050 of 2011(O) ------------------------- PETITIONER : -------------------- M/S PANCHAMI TYRES, PATHANAMTHITTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER P.C.GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI, AGED 62, S/O.CHELLAPPAN PILLAI, CHAVADITHEKKETHIL, RESIDING AT MULLAMANGALATHU HOUSE, MAROOR MURI, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI. R. SANTHOSH BABU RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER PATHANAMTHITTA 689 645. 2. T.S.VIJAYAKUMAR, AGED 37 YEARS S/O. SIVASANKARAN NAIR, THAMARAPARAMBIL, THANBILAKADU PO., PONKUNNAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM 686 506 3. T.P.JOSHUVA, THAYYIL VEEDU, KIZHAKKUMPURAM KONNI THAZHA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST 689 645. 4. T.T.MANI, MULLAMANGALATHU HOUSE, MAROOR MURI, PATHANAMTHITTA VILLAGE 689 645. 5. VIJAYAMMA M.P., OF DO. DO. 6. USHA M.P. OF DO. DO. R1 BY ADV. SRI. P.V. SURENDRANATH, SC THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- OP(C).No. 2050 of 2011(O) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF DECREE IN O.S. 117/1986 OF SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA DATED 13-10-1987. EXT.P2 : COPY OF EXECUTION PETITION DATED 28-10-1998 E.P. NO. 281/1998 IN O.S. 117/1986 SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA. EXT.P3 : COPY OF NOTICE. EXT.P4 : COPY OF OBJECTION IN E.P. 281/1998 IN O.S. 117/1986 SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA DATED 23-6-2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== O.P(C) No.2050 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 23rd day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T Exhibit P3, sale notice is under challenge. According to the petitioner amount due under the decree is not mentioned in Ext.P3. 2. First respondent has obtained a decree for recovery of money against petitioner in O.S. No.117 of 1986 of the court of the learned Sub Judge, Pathanamthitta. Admittedly, notice under Rule 66 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure was given to the petitioner who preferred Ext.P4, objection. According to the petitioner, upset price of the property was fixed as Rupees Four lakhs while the property is capable of fetching more. It is also stated that the machinery belonging to the petitioner was sold by the first respondent but the sale proceeds was not adjusted in the amount if any payable to the first respondent. 3. This Court while admitting the Original Petition directed petitioner to deposit `50,000/- in the executing court before 16.8.2011. But that was not complied with by the petitioner. Since I am disposing of the Original Petition it is not necessary to direct petitioner to deposit the said amount. Though petitioner has O.P(C) No.2050 of 2011 -: 2 :- contended that upset price fixed is not correct, no material is produced to substantiate that contention. Hence that contention of petitioner cannot be accepted. However, amount payable by petitioner to the first respondent is required to be fixed before the sale is conducted. Resultantly, Original Petition is disposed of directing that executing court shall fix the amount payable by the petitioner to the respondent before property is sold. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv