IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2011 / 10TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 26038 of 2010(O) -------------------------- ARC.294/2006 of MUNI-MAGI.COURT,PONNANI .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------ SARADA, D/O.THAMI, ADARSSERI PARAMBIL, KUTTIPPALA P.O., VATTAMKULAM-679 578. BY ADV. SRI.RANJITH XAVIER RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. SECRETARY, VATTAMKULAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, P.O.VATTAMKULAM-679 578. 2. MR.IBRAHIM, S/O.KUNJI MOHAMMED, IKKOORATHU VALAPPIL HOUSE, NEDUVATTOM, SUKAPURAM P.O., EDAPPAL-679 308. R2 BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P (C) No.26038/2010 -2- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1 – THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE PROCLAMATION DATED 16-03-2010. EXT.P2 – TRUE COPY OF E.A. NO.54/2010. EXT.P3 – TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14-07-2010 DISMISSING E.A NO.54/2010. EXT.P4 – THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14-07-2010 DISMISSING E.A. NO.54/2010. EXT.P5 – TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14-07-2010 DISMISSING E.A. No.59/2010. EXT.P6 – THE TRUE COPY OF THE E.A. NO.53/2010. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS NIL TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE AMG THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.26038 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of September, 2011. JUDGMENT Petitioner is the judgment debtor in E.P.No.513 of 2007 of the court of learned Munsiff-Magistrate, Ponnani challenging Ext.P3, order under Rule 90 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”). Petitioner filed E.A.No.54 of 2010 under the said provision to set aside the sale held on 17.05.2010. That application was dismissed. The order comes under Rule 92 of Order XXI of the Code which is appealable under Rule 1(j) of Order XLIII of the Code of the said Code. The proper course available to the petitioner is to challenge the impugned order in appeal. Learned counsel for 2nd respondent also submitted that the proper remedy available to the petitioner is to file an appeal. 2. Since appellate remedy is available to the petitioner I do not find reason to entertain this Writ Petition. Resultantly without prejudice to the right of petitioner to file appeal against the impugned order this Writ Petition is closed. I.A.No.8193 of 2011 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks