IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE FRIDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1933 FAO.No. 25 of 2011 -------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10/11/2010 IN EA.80/2008 IN EP.361/2005 IN OS.163/1999 of PRL.SUB COURT,IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANTS (S):PETITIONERS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. SARAVANAN, S/O.THOPPIL KUMARAN, METHALA VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. 2. THANKAMANI, W/O.KOONAKKAMBILLY ASHOKAN, EDAKUTAM DESOM, POOMANGALAM VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 3. SHILA, W/O.THOPPIL SARAVANAN, KOOTAPPURAM DESOM, METHALA VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. 4. SHEEBA, D/O.KOONAMKKAMBILLY ASHOKAN, POOMANGALAM VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.BHARATHAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------------- THE LORD KRISHNA BANK LTD. (NOW CENTURION BANK OF PUNJAB LTD.) REPRESENTED BY BRANCH MANAGER, KODUNGALLUR-680 664. BY ADV. SRI.T.RAJESH THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH & A. M. SHAFFIQUE, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------- F.A.O.No.25 of 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated, this the 11th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. Appellants are judgment debtors 1 to 4. They filed application for setting aside the execution sale. The application has been dismissed. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/decree holder. No doubt, the case of the appellants is that 71 cents of land was sold for realisation of the decree amount of Rs.5 lakhs with interest. According to the appellants, they had filed objection to Order 21 Rule 66 notice wherein the value of the property was shown as Rs.11 lakhs and Rs.5,50,000/- for Item No. I and Item No.2 respectively. But, they were not shown in the proclamation. Learned counsel for the appellants fairly points out that the revised proclamation actually would show that the value had been shown in the objections. So there is no merit in the contention. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that, if some time is given appellants can FAO 25/2011 -2- pay off the amount. Learned counsel for the respondent/decree holder does not seriously oppose grant of reasonable time. In such circumstances, we dispose of the appeal as follows: We give six months' time from today to the appellants to pay off the entire decreetal amount. Necessarily, the proceedings will be kept in abeyance for the appellants to do so. In case the appellants do not pay the amount within the stipulated time, the appeal will stand dismissed and the impugned order will stand. In case the appellants pay off the amount as directed, the impugned order and the sale will stand set aside. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (A. M. SHAFFIQUE) JUDGE. MS