IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2010 / 20TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 5578 of 2009(O) ------------------------------------ EA.872/08 IN EP.46/05 IN O.S.263/2000 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------------- K.N.SREEDEVI,W/O.LATE PONNU EZHUTHASSAN, AGED 59 YRS, VINOD NIVAS,PALANCHERRY VEEDU, KURIDIKKAD, PUDUSSERI AMSOM, PALAKKAD TALUK AND DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ KANAKARAJ, S/O.MUTHUSWAMY KOUNDER, AGED 44 YRS,6TH MILE,VANNAMADA POST, KOZHIPATHY VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.SHRIKUMAR SRI.SREEJITH S.NAIR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.5578 OF 2009: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1. TRUE COPY OF EP 46/2005 OF THE SUB COUT, PALAKKAD FILED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P2. TRUE COPY OF THE PROCLAMATION FOR SALE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER ORDER 21 RULE 66 CPC. EXT.P3. TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE DRAFT SALE PROCLAMATION DATED 20.7.2007. EXT.P4. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.7.2008 IN EP NO. 46/2005 OF THE SUB COURT, PALAKKAD. EXT.P5. TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER 21 RULE 90 CPC AS EA NO. 756/2008 IN EP NO. 46/2005 BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUB COURT, PALAKKAD. EXT.P6. TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING EXHIBIT P5 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUB COURT, PALAKKAD. EXT.P7. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.9.2008 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC 28562/2008. EXT.P8. TRUE COPY OF EA 872/2008 DATED 13.10.2008 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE SUB COURT, PALAKKAD. EXT.P9.TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.1.2009 PASSED BY THE SUB COURT, PALAKKAD. K.M.JOSEPH , J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) .No.5578 of 2009-O ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 11th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the 2nd judgment debtor. She has filed application under Order 21 Rule 90 Code of Civil Procedure. She had approached this Court earlier when she was confronted with the steps taken by the Court to confirm the auction sale in favour of the decree holder. Ext.P7 is the judgment. In the same, the learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of the writ petition as follows: “This writ petition is disposed of staying the confirmation of the sale for a period of one month from today on condition that the petitioner deposits before the Executing Court a further amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) and files an application within two weeks from today before the Executing Court requesting for an installment facility. In case the petitioner complies with the above condition, the Executing Court may consider the request of the petitioner for installment facility for the balance amount after hearing both sides.” 2. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the same petitioner has deposited Rs.50,000/- and filed Ext.P8 claiming the benefit of installment facility. But, the petitioner offered to pay at the rate of Rs.10,000/- every month. The Executing Court has not found the said offer reasonable but allowed the Execution Application filed by the petitioner by allowing the WPC No.5578/2010 -2- petitioner to pay monthly installments of Rs.50,000/- till the payment of the entire dues. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application under Order 21 Rule 90 is still pending. He also fairly submits that there is delay in filing the application. Any way he submits that petitioner may be given some time to save the property which belonged to the Ist respondent judgment debtor, her late husband. Learned counsel for the respondent supports the order. However, he submits that a reasonable time can be granted. 4. Having regard to the interest of justice in the circumstances of the case I feel that the petitioner can be permitted to clear off the entire amount due in seven monthly installments at the rate of Rs.40,000/- (Forty thousand), ie., after giving credit for the amount already paid by the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by modifying Ext.P9 and allowing the petitioner to pay off the decree amount in monthly installments of Rs.40,000/- (Forty thousand) till the payment of the entire dues. The Ist WPC No.5578/2010 -3- installment is to be paid on or before 30.8.2010. The 2nd installment is payable on or before 15.9.2010 and the further installments are to be payable on or before 15th of the succeeding months. The 7th installment shall consist of the entire balance amount remaining to be paid as per the decree. It is made clear that in case of default of payment of any one of the installments this facility shall stand cancelled. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. MS