IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2008 / 31ST SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 25410 of 2008(Y) --------------------------------------- (ORDER DATED 22/07/2008 IN E.A.NO.855 OF 2008 IN E.A.NO. 565 OF 2007 IN E.P.NO.112 OF 1995 IN O.S.NO.348 OF 1987 OF SUB COURT, PARAVUR) PETITIONER: -------------------- BAHULEYAN, S/O LATE T.K. NARAYANAN, GURUPRASADAM, ANDRAPER COMPOUND, BANK JUNCTION, ALUVA KARA, ALUVA 683 101, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.O.RAMACHANDRAN NAMBIAR SRI.GEEN T.MATHEW RESPONDENT: --------------------- ANNIE JOHNY,W/O LATE JOHNY, THAIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KODAR LANE, BRIDGE ROAD, ALUVA KARA, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) NO.25410 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the decree holder and respondent the judgment debtor. This petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to quash Ext.P5 order passed by the executing Court, dismissing the application filed for review of Ext.P6 order. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that learned Sub Judge may be directed to dispose of Ext.P1 petition, filed under Rule 89 of Order XXI of Code of Civil Procedure untrammeled by any observation made in Ext.P5 and Ext.P6 orders. 2. When execution first appeal E.F.A.33 of 2004 was dismissed by this Court, permission was granted to the judgment debtor to deposit the necessary amount and file an application under Rule 89 of Order XXI of Code of Civil Procedure. Ext.P1 petition was thereafter filed. Ext.P6 order was passed in that application when the correctness of the amount deposited was doubted. Ext.P6 order was subsequently passed when Ext.P5 WP(C)25410/08 2 order was sought to be reviewed. 3. It is for the learned Sub Judge to decide in Ext.P1 application whether the sale is to be set aside as provided under Rule 89 of Order XXI of Code of Civil Procedure or not. While considering that application learned Sub Judge has necessarily to consider whether the entire amount, as contemplated under Rule 89, is deposited and whether that deposit is made within the period and whether the application is filed within the period. The learned Judge is directed to dispose Ext.P1 application, untrammeled by the observations made in Ext.P5 and P6 orders, in accordance with law. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE Okb/-