IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2009 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1931 FAO.No. 13 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10/12/2008 IN E.P 69/2006 IN AC.701/2003 of SUB COURT,KATTAPPANA .................... APPELLANT/ 2ND RESPONDENT IN E.P -------------- BARATHI, D/O KARTHIYANI, NANJILATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, VELLAYAMKUDY KARA, KATTAPPANA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.AJEESH S.BRITE RESPONDENT(S): DECREE HOLDER AND IST RESPONDENT IN E.P. --------------------- 1. DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, KATTAPPANA BRANCH,REP; BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 2. THANKAPPAN.N.J, NANJILATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE KATTAPPANA.P.O, KATTAPPANA VILLAGE. ADDL. 3. RAJAN, MECHERIYIL HOUSE, AMBALAMUKKU, KATTAPPANA SOUTH P.O., KATTAPANA VILLAGE. (IMPLEADED AS ADDL. THIRD RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 13.1.2009 IN I.A.No.156/2009) ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU FOR R3 SRI.THOMAS J.ANAKKALLUNKAL FOR R3 SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN FOR R1 SRI.ALPHONS D XAVIER FOR R1 THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------- F.A.O.No. 13 of 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 26th May, 2009 J U D G M E N T Raman, J. This is an appeal by the second judgment debtor against the order in E.A.No.317/08 in E.P.No.69/06, on the file of Sub Court, Kattappana. That was an application filed by her under Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Appellant's property was sold for realisation of the decree amount. Third respondent herein was her successful bidder who purchased the property in court auction and sale was also confirmed. He deposited an amount of Rs.1,30,000/= which is the bid amount, but he could not take delivery or possession of the property. It was in the mean time that the appellant preferred the above E.A. The main grievance of the appellant was that the property was sold for a meager amount without ascertaining the market value. The decree holder has shown the centage value at the rate of Rs.1900/= and the appellant's value FAO.No.13 of 2009 2 was also shown, and it was thereafter that the property was sold. In those circumstances, the application was dismissed. 2. During the pendency of the appeal, we directed the appellant-second judgment debtor to deposit an amount of Rs.1,50,000/= towards the amount that may have to be paid to the third respondent, in case the appeal is eventually to be allowed. That has been done. 3. After hearing both sides, it was agreed that an amount of Rs.1,44,000/= be allowed to be withdrawn by the third respondent and the sale could be set aside. Accordingly, the sale stands set aside. The third respondent is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.1,44,000/= from out of the deposit amount of Rs.1,50,000/=. The balance amount of Rs.6000/= shall be refunded to the petitioner. The appeal is allowed as above. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN , JUDGE. nj.