IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2011 / 31ST ASHADHA 1933 OP(C).No. 1208 of 2011(O) -------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN EP.NO. 46/2010 IN OS.397/2007 of SUB COURT, TIRUR .................... PETITIONER --------------------- N.ABDUL LATHEEF, S/O.HUSSAIN N., AGED 39 YEARS, NAMBALAKANDY HOUSE, CHELAMBRA P.O., CHELAMBRA AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.K.G.SAROJINI RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. M/S.SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO. LTD., FORMERLY M/S.SHRIRAM INVESTMENTS LTD., SREEPADAM BUILDING, CHEROOTY ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673032, REP. BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER AND PRINCIPAL OFFICER, VENUGOPAL P.T. 2. V.K.ABDUL SHUKKOOR, S/O.MOHAMMED KUTTY, AGED 37 YEARS, MELODIPPADAM HOUSE, NALLALAM P.O,. NALLALAM AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673027. R1 BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH NAMBIAR THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts OP(C)NO.1208/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 08/03/2011 ISSUED BY THE SUB COURT, TIRUR IN E.P.NO.46/2010 IN O.S.NO.397/2007. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== O.P(C) No.1208 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the second judgment debtor in E.P. No.46 of 2010 in O.S. No.397 of 2007 of the court of leaned Sub Judge, Tirur. Petitioner challenges Ext.P1, notice for sale of 68.5 cents of land belonging to the petitioner for recovery of more than Rupees six lakhs. According to the petitioner it is sufficient that a portion of the property is sold for realization of the decree debt. 2. Learned counsel for first respondent-decree holder submitted that second respondent has filed RFA No.355 of 2010 in this Court and that matter has been sent for mediation and that case is posted on 12.08.2011. It is submitted by learned counsel that there is possibility of the matter being settled between parties in the mediation and if mater is settled as first respondent desires further execution proceeding itself may become not necessary. 3. This Court while issuing notice to the first respondent on 25.03.2011 directed that there will be an interim order of stay as prayed for against sale of property. That order remains in force even now. O.P(C) No.1208 of 2011 -: 2 :- 4. In view of what has been submitted before me, what is required is only to keep further proceeding in execution in abeyance so that parties could settle the dispute and in case settlement did not go through, it is open to the first respondent to proceed with execution. In such event it is open to the petitioner to request the executing court to consider whether sale of a portion of the property is sufficient for realization of the decree debt. Resultantly, the Original Petition is disposed of in the following lines: (a) Interim order of stay against further proceeding in execution granted by this Court as per order dated March 25, 2011 and extended from time to time is extended till 31.08.2011. (b) If in the meantime parties settle the dispute as submitted before me it is open to them to inform the executing court in case further execution is not necessary that the proceeding may be closed. O.P(C) No.1208 of 2011 -: 3 :- (c) If settlement does not go through, it is open to the first respondent to proceed with the execution of the decree on the expiry of the period above stated or when the settlement fails, whichever is earlier. Contention of petitioner that sale of a portion of the property is sufficient to discharge the decree debt is relegated for decision of the executing court. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv