IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 13TH DECEMBER 2011 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA 1933 OP(C).No. 4067 of 2011(O) ------------------------- OS.504/2005 of ADDL.SUB COURT, NORTH PARAVUR .................... PETITIONERS ----------------- 1. VISWARAJ, S/O.AYYAPPANKUTTY, KALAPILLY, KADUNGALLOOR KARA, EAST KADUNGALLUR PO, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 683102. 2. AYYAPPANKUTTY, S/O.PALLIKURUMBAN, KALAPILLY, KADUNGALLOOR KARA, EAST KADUNGALLUR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 683102. BY ADV. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. M.M.ISMAIL, S/O.AHAMED, MANATH PAZHAYAPURAYIDATHIL, KAKKANAD KARA, VAZHAKKALA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 682021. 2. RAMLATH, D/O.PALAKUZHI CHENAYILSEEDI, KAKKANAD KARA, VAZHAKKALA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 682021. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK OP(C).No. 4067 of 2011(O) ------------------------------- APPENDIX ------------ PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS ----------------------------- EXHIBIT-P1. TRUE COPY OF THE E.P.NO.343/2009 IN O.S.NO.504/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, NORTH PARAVUR DATED 06.11.2009. EXHIBI-P2. TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED TO ORDER 21 RULE 66 NOTICE IN E.P.NO.343/2009 IN O.S.NO.504/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, NORTH PARAVUR DATED 04.06.2011. EXHIBIT-P3. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN E.P.NO.343/2009 IN O.S.NO.504/2005 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, NORTH PARAVUR DATED 02.08.2011. EXHIBIT-P4. TRUE COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ADDITONAL SUB COURT, NORTH PARAVUR, DATED 05.11.2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL ------------------------------- / TRUE COPY / P.A. TO JUDGE VK THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== O.P(C) No.4067 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 13th day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T This Original Petition is in challenge of Ext.P3, order dated 02.08.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sub Judge, North Paravur and Ext.P4, sale notice in E.P. No.343 of 2009 in O.S. No.504 of 2005. 2. Respondents obtained a decree for recovery of money from petitioners and as per Ext.P4, sale notice the amount due is Rs.15,49,667/-. Property of petitioners is being brought up for sale. Respondents wanted three items to be sold but the executing court took the view that of the three items, the first item - 20.25 Ares alone is sufficient even if value is taken as Rs.30,000/- per cent. Grievance of petitioners is that value of property suggested by them is not shown in Ext.P4, sale notice. 3. In Ext.P3, order after considering the objection raised by petitioners learned Munsiff has stated that the value stated by the respondent for item No.1 is not correct and that even if item No.1 is sold at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per cent, that would satisfy the decree debt. 4. I must bear in mind that Ext.P3, order is dated O.P(C) No.4067 of 2011 -: 2 :- 02.08.2011 and no attempt was made to challenge the said order within a reasonable time. 5. So far as the contention of petitioners that value suggested by them is not shown in Ext.P4, sale notice is concerned, it is open to the petitioners to raise that question before the executing court if they are entitled to that course. At this stage I am not inclined to the interfere with the sale notice. If petitioners are desirous of discharging the decree debt in installments they can request for the same before learned Sub Judge and if any such request is made, learned Sub Judge shall after hearing the respondents also pass appropriate orders in that regard subject to appropriate conditions as may be found necessary. Original Petition is disposed of with the above direction. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv