IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2008 / 30TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 25236 of 2008(D) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN EP 75 2006 IN OS.40/2005 of SUB COURT,NEYYATTINKARA .................... PETITIONER: ------------ SHEEBA, W/O.SAJI KUMAR, CHRIST SADANAM, NAKKODU, PERUMPAZHUTHOOR P.O., NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- MADHUSOODHANAN NAIR, S/O.BHASKARAN NAIR, SYAMALALAYAM, THANNIVILA, PALLICHAL VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.25236 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 21st August, 2008. J U D G M E N T This petition is filed by the wife of judgment debtor directing Sub Court, Neyyattinkara, to set aside Ext.P4 sale proclamation and to consider Exts.P5 and P6 petitions and pass orders thereafter. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard. 3. Petitioner had earlier filed W.P.(C) No.21687 of 2007 challenging the earlier proclamation issued by the executing court. Under Ext.P2 judgment, this Court directed the executing court to grant one month's time to enable petitioner to have a breathing time, as it was contended that her husband, judgment debtor, has abandoned her. That judgment was passed on 13.7.2007. If the petitioner wants to avoid the sale, she has sufficient time to pay off the debt. W.P.(C) No.25236 of 2008 2 3. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that property is worth more than Rs.11 lakhs, but the upset price earlier fixed was Rs.4 lakhs, which was subsequently reduced to Rs.1,70,000/=, and petitioner is the mother of the minor children and as judgment debtor is not there, the proclamation for sale is to be set aside. Learned counsel also argued that petitioner has filed an application under Rule 58 of Order XXI of Code of Civil Procedure, and petitions are pending and before disposing the petitions, the property may not be sold. On hearing the learned counsel, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the sale proclamation warranting interference. If petitioner has a charge in the property as claimed by her, and therefore, has interest in the property, petitioner has a remedy to apply under Rule 89 of Rule 90 of Code of Civil Procedure, once sale is effected. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj.