IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2011 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1933 OP(C).No. 570 of 2011(O) ------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17/07/2010 IN EA 339/10 IN EP 160/99 IN OS.111/1998 of SUB COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER :- ---------------------- MATHEWS JACOB, S/O. JACOB MATHEW, AGED 52 YEARS, RESIDIING AT PONMALAI PLANTATIONS, DHONI POST, AKATHETHARA VILLAGE, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SMT.A.G.ANEETHA SMT.M.KABANI DINESH RESPONDENT(S) :- ------------------------- 1. BRANCH MANAGER, THE CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD., WEST FORT BRANCH, TRICHUR-680001. 2. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI-110001. ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDIA FOR R2 SRI.K.ANAND FOR R1 SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN FOR R1 SRI.B.S.KRISHNAN, SC FOR R1 THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: jvt K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------ O.P(C).No.570 OF 2011 ------------------------------ Dated this the 8 th day of April, 2011 JUDGMENT The first respondent got a decree for realisation of Rs.2,93,972/- against the petitioner in O.S.No.111 of 1998 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Palakkad. E.P.No.160 of 1999 was filed for execution of the decree. Immovable property belonging to the petitioner was brought to sale for realisation of the decree amount. The property was purchased by the decree holder in the court auction. The sale was confirmed and sale certificate was issued. 2. The petitioner filed E.A.No.339, 340 and 341 of 2010 before the Executing Court to set aside the sale, to condone the delay in filing the application, and for permitting the petitioner to deposit the decree amount. It was alleged that the W.P(C).No.570 OF 2011 2 decree holder had not taken possession of the property and that the petitioner is still in possession. 3. The court below dismissed the applications by Ext.P6 order dated 17 th July, 2010, which is under challenge in this Original petition. The court below held that the sale certificate was issued to the decree holder/auction purchaser on 5.3.2001 and the application to set aside the sale is barred by limitation. It was also held that the Executing Court has no power to condone the delay in filing the application to set aside the sale. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is prepared to pay the entire decree amount together with compound interest at 16.25% and costs to the first respondent-decree holder within three months. W.P(C).No.570 OF 2011 3 The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent bank, on instructions, submitted that if the petitioner complies with the aforesaid offer, the bank is prepared to assign the immovable property to the petitioner at the expense of the petitioner. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents are recorded and the Original Petition is disposed of as above. It is submitted by the counsel appearing for both parties that they will comply with their respective obligations without fail. The learned counsel for the first respondent Bank submitted that till the expiry of three months, the property will not be transferred by the Bank to others. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is making attempts to persuade the first respondent to reduce the interest. He is W.P(C).No.570 OF 2011 4 free to do so. If a consensus on that point emerges, nothing stated herein above would stand in the way of the parties to implement the same. Original Petition is disposed of as above. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms