IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 20TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 4149 of 2009(R) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. SHRI.P.A.PALLI, S/O.AYYAPPAN, PERUMBAVOOKARAN HOUSE, KUNDUKUZHIPADAM, KUTTICHIRA P.O., CHALAKUDY - VIA, THRISSUR DIST. 2. SMT.VALLOTI, W/O.P.A.PALLI, PERUMBAVOOKARAN HOUSE, KUNDUKUZHIPADAM, KUTTICHIRA P.O., CHALAKUDY - VIA, THRISSUR DIST. 3. SHRI.SIVAN, S/O.P.A.PALLI, PERUMBAVOOKARAN HOUSE, KUNDUKUZHIPADAM, KUTTICHIRA P.O., CHALAKUDY - VIA, THRISSUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.M.H.HANIL KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, CHALAKUDY, CHALAKUDY P.O., THRISSUR DIST. 2. SALE OFFICER (ASST.REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES) FOR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK THRISSUR, THIRUVAMBADI P.O., THRISSUR-22. 3. V.R.KRISHNANKUTTY, S/O.RAMAN, VADAKEVEETTIL HOUSE, PUKUNAM P.O., THRISSUR DIST. R1 - BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI P C SASIDHARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 4149 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2009 JUDGMENT Adv.Sri P.C.Sasidharan appears for first and second respondents. Notice to third respondent dispensed with, preserving his right to move for review of this judgment, if aggrieved. 2. Petitioners are debtors of the first respondent. An arbitration award is put in execution. Matters relating to due execution, discharge and satisfaction of an arbitration award are matters to be agitated under the statute. The authority before whom an application for setting aside a sale, either on deposit or on other ground, is essentially the Sale Officer or Registrar as the case may be, in terms of the statute. If Ext.P2 is one in accordance with law, it is for the Sale Officer to consider it. The sale having been held. However, if Ext.P2 is not in accordance with law, the petitioner will not be entitled to any relief in terms of that application. The question whether Ext.P3 circular is available to the petitioner would be open for consideration only in accordance with law, which again, is a matter that would depend upon the decision that may be taken on the application to WP(C) 4149/2009 2 set aside the sale. Hence without expressing anything on merits, the second respondent is directed to take up Ext.P2 and consider it, if it is within his authority and pass orders in accordance with law. This judgment does not stand in the way of petitioner filing appropriate petitions before the competent statutory authority in accordance with law. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/10/2