IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2010 / 27TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).NO. 26197 OF 2010(O) ---------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN EP 33/08 IN ARC.2223/2004 OF SUB COURT, HOSDRUG .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SHEHAPRABHA.K., W/O.K.V.BABU, CHALIYAN NAYIL,AJANUR VILLAGE P.O.KOLAVAYAL, HOSDURG TALUK,KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- KOTTACHERRY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOTTACHERRY, BALLA VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK P.O.KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== W.P(C) No.26197 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 18th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T Judgment debtor in E.P. No.33 of 2008 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Hosdurg where the Award in ARC No.2223 of 2004 is being executed is the petitioner. For realisation of amount due under the award property belonging to the petitioner was brought up for sale in the year 2008. Respondent filed E.A No.118 of 2008 to sell the property in public auction, if there is no bidder to permit respondent to purchase the property and to fix upset price at Rs.six lakhs. That application was allowed. Since there was no bidder the sale did not take place. Thereafter respondent filed E.A.No.296 of 2009 to reduce upset price to Rs.5.50 lakhs. That application was objected but executing court allowed it. Accordingly upset price was fixed as Rs.5.50 lakhs. Property was sold on 08.07.2010 and purchased by the respondent. Execution Petition is now posted on 09.09.2010 for confirmation of sale. Grievance of petitioner is that upset price was fixed in the year 2008 as Rs.6 lakhs and after one year it was reduced to Rs.5.50 lakhs. According to the petitioner property has W.P(C) No.26197 of 2010 -: 2 :- been sold for a throw away price. 2. These are grounds which if proved petitioner could urge in an application under Order XX1 Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”) or if law permits under Sec.47 of that Code as the case may be. There is no reason why this court should interfere with the sale conducted by the executing court when statutory remedies are available to the petitioner on proof of appropriate grounds. I therefore do not consider it necessary to interfere in the matter. Hence without prejudice to the right of petitioner (if any) to seek statutory remedy as provided under the Code against the impugned sale, this Writ Petition is closed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv