IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2010 / 20TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).NO. 17989 OF 2010(O) ----------------------------------------- (E.P. NO.80 OF 2007 IN OS.173/2002 OF PRL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- K.K. RAMANKUTTY, AGED 52, S/O. KUNJU, KOLANGRA VALISSERY, P.O. AVINISSERY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- KALYANI, D/O. THIRUVAMBADI AYYAPPAN, POONKUNNAM DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== W.P(C) No.17989 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 10th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T Judgment debtor in E.P.No.80 of 2007 in O.S. No.173 of 2002 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Thrissur has come up with this Writ Petition challenging Ext.P2, sale notice proclaiming sale of property on 14.06.2010. According to the petitioner property proclaimed for sale is 15 cents and a residential building thereon which is valued even at Government rate between Rs.80,000-90,000/- per cent and that even as per Ext.P2 amount due under the decree is only Rs.1,55,748/-. For realisation of that amount it is not necessary to sell the entire property and sale of four cents as suggested by petitioner in Ext.P3, schedule is sufficient. In the circumstances it is prayed that Ext.P2, sale notice may be set aside. Learned counsel contends that entire property is proclaimed for sale without application of mind and ascertaining whether sale of a portion of the property is sufficient to satisfy the decree debt. 2. Exhibit P2 shows that upset price is fixed as Rs.75,000/-. But it does not appear that the executing court W.P(C) No.17989 of 2010 -: 2 :- considered the question whether sale of a portion of the property as suggested by petitioner is sufficient to discharge the decree debt. If sale of such portion alone is sufficient executing court has no jurisdiction to sell the entire property. I however, do not find reason to interfere with Ext.P2, sale notice at this stage. Notwithstanding that sale notice has been published as per Ext.P2 executing court shall consider whether sale of four cents as stated by petitioner in Ext.P3 is sufficient for satisfaction of the amount due under the decree. If it is necessary petitioner may request the executing court to depute a commission to ascertain value of property and feasibility of selling four cents as referred to in Ext.P3. If it is found that sale of four cents is not sufficient to discharge decree debt it will be open to the executing court to proceed with sale of property pursuant to Ext.P2. In case adjournment of sale is necessary petitioner shall file an affidavit in the executing court waiving fresh proclamation for sale within two weeks from this day. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv