IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 26TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 4TH ASWINA 1933 OP(C).No. 3066 of 2011(O) ------------------------- EP NO.199/2009 IN OS.166/2001 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER (S):: ------------------------------- THOMAS JOSEPH, KANJAPARAMBIL HOUSE, NELLUMTHADOM, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.SHABU SREEDHARAN SRI.C.K.PRASAD SRI.T.S.ANURAJ SRI.B.BALA PRASANNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- SIBY GEORGE, KULATHUNKAL HOUSE, ELANJI VILLAGE, ELANJI P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, PIN-686 661. ADV. SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(C)NO.3066/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1: A TRUE COY OF EP.NO.199/09 IN OS.166/01 DATED 30/3/2009 BEFORE THE ADDL.SUB COURT, KOTTAYAM DATED 20/9/2008. EXHIBIT P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM STAY ORDER DATED 7/8/2009 IN RFA NO.89/09 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXHIBIT P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE AUCTION NOTICE ISSUED LBY THE ADDL.SUB COURT UNDER ORDER 21 RULE 66 OF CPC DATED 24/1/2011. EXHIBIT P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN SLP NO.4477/06 OF THE SUPREME COURT DATED 22/9/06. EXHIBIT P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT 22/11/2006. EXHIBIT P6: A TRUE COPY OF EA.138/11 BEFORE ADDL.SUB COURT DATED 10/2/2011. EXHIBIT P7: A TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DATED 14/2/2011 IN EP 199/09 IN OS.166/01 SUB COURT KOTTAYAM. EXHIBIT P8: A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OPC.635/2011 DATED 30/5/2011 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXHIBIT P9: A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCLAMATION NOTICE DATED 29/8/2011. EXHIBIT P10: A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE SUB COURT KOTTAYAM DATED 15/3/2011. EXHIBIT P11: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER (VILLAGE OFFICER) EDAKUNNAM DATED 19/7/2010. EXHIBIT P12: A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION IN EP.199/09 IN OS.NO.166/01 OF ADDL.SUB COURT, KOTTAYAM, DATED 16/2/2011. EXHIBIT P13: A TRUE COPOY FO VALUATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY A GOVERNMENT APPROVED ENGINEER DATED 09/2/2011. EXHIBIT P14: A TRUE COPY FO THE APPLICATION IN OS.166/01 DATED 12/7/2011 OF ADDL.SUB COURT KOTTAYAM. EXHIBIT P15: A TRUE COPY OF THE `L' SHAPED LAND SKETCH SAVING HIS RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY DATED 8/8/2011. EXHIBIT P16: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN EP NO.199/09 IN OS.NO.166/01 DASTED 10/8/2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.3066 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of September, 2011. JUDGMENT Respondent appears through counsel. 2. Petitioner is the judgment debtor in E.P.No.199 of 2009 in O.S.No.166 of 2001 of the court of learned Additional Sub Judge, Kottayam. Respondent obtained a money decree and sought execution against petitioner. Petitioner filed Ext.P6, application (E.A.No.138 of 2011) to adjourn/stop sale of attached immovable property for the time being. Complaining that without disposing of that application the executing court is proceeding with sale of the property, petitioner approached this Court in O.P.(C) No.635 of 2011. This Court in Ext.P8, judgment dated May 30, 2011 observed that it is only appropriate to direct learned Additional Sub Judge, Kottayam to consider and dispose of Ext.P6, application expeditiously and till then the proceeding for sale of property belonging to the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance. 3. Grievance of petitioner in this proceeding is that notwithstanding Ext.P8, judgment the executing court is proceeding with sale of property as per a new sale proclamation (Ext.P9). Learned counsel for petitioner asserted that Ext.P6, application as far as the information given to him goes, has not been disposed of. Learned counsel for respondent submitted that instruction given to 2 him is that Ext.P6, application (E.A.No.138 of 2011) was disposed of by the learned Additional Sub Judge on 13.07.2011. 4. If Ext.P6, application has not been disposed of, executing court (Additional Sub Court, Kottayam) has to comply with Ext.P8, judgment. What is required is only to direct so. Resultantly this Original Petition is disposed of directing that in case Ext.P6, application has not been disposed of, the executing court shall comply with Ext.P8, judgment. THOMAS P.JOSEPH,