IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2010 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1932 RP.NO. 239 OF 2010(D) ---------- {IN W.P.(C)NO.9488 OF 2008 OF THIS COURT} --------------------- REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------- A.GOPALAKRISHNAN, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.AYYAPPAN, AYKARAKUNNEL HOUSE, VANNAPPURAM KARA, VANNAPPURAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.KAPPILLIL ANILKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): WRIT PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------- N.SIVARAMAN, AGED 71 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN, VADAKKANAL HOUSE, VADAKKUMMURI, THODUPUZHA VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV SRI. JOSE JOSEPH ARAYAKUNNEL THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. --------------------------------------- R.P.No.239 of 2010 in W.P.(C).NO.9488 of 2008 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of May, 2010 O R D E R Review petitioner is the respondent in the writ petition, which was disposed by judgment dated 29.1.2010. The writ petition was filed by the decree holder in a suit for money challenging the order of the execution court fixing the upset price and settling the proclamation over the attached property of the judgment debtor. The writ petition was disposed, after hearing both sides, directing the execution court to complete the execution proceedings within the time limit fixed. Though no tenable ground was seen made in the memorandum of review petition to sustain the prayer for review of the judgment rendered in the writ petition, considering the persuasive submissions made by the learned counsel for the review petitioner seeking indulgence of this court for a further opportunity to discharge the entire decree debt by payment within a time limit agreed upon and on the undertaking given by the review petitioner, as borne out by the affidavit sworn to by him dated 10.3.2010, that he will deposit Rs.2 R.P.No.239 of 2010 in W.P.(C).NO.9488 of 2008 :: 2 :: lakhs before the court below on 15.3.2010 and the entire balance amount under the decree to the decree holder within two months from 10.3.2010. I have passed an order on 15.3.2010 directing the court below to defer the confirmation of the sale, which had already taken place, for a period of three months from the date of the order. After obtaining such favourable orders from this court in the review petition, review petitioner has now filed I.A.No.220/10 with some documents stating that he has entered into an agreement of sale for sale of a portion of the property covered by the sale and lifting of the attachment ordered over that property is essential for collecting the sale price, to discharge the liability due to the decree holder. The attachment has already culminated in sale of the property and what now remains is only confirmation, which has been deferred on the undertaking given by the judgment debtor that he would discharge the entire liability due to the decree holder within three months from 15.3.2010, as ordered by this R.P.No.239 of 2010 in W.P.(C).NO.9488 of 2008 :: 3 :: court. He has deposited Rs.2 lakhs within the time limit fixed by this court under the above order in no way relieves him from fulfilling and honouring the undertaking made for deferring the confirmation of the sale over the property. I find no merit in I.A.No.220/2010 seeking a direction to the court below to lift the attachment of the property which had already been proceeded with in sale by the execution court. I.A.No.220/2010 is only to be dismissed. Though there is a direction in the order dated 15.3.2010 for posting the review petition after three months, taking note of the stand taken by the review petitioner/judgment debtor tantamounting to the undertaking given before this court that he would discharge the liability within a period of three months, I find no further consideration of the review petition is called for. In case the revision petitioner fails to discharge the decree debt within the time limit, as undertaken by him and given expression to in the order R.P.No.239 of 2010 in W.P.(C).NO.9488 of 2008 :: 4 :: dated 15.3.2010 of this court, the court below shall take appropriate steps for confirmation of the sale, in accordance with law. Review petition is dismissed, subject to the above directions/observations. I.A.No.220/2010 Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge.