IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2008 / 16TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 23785 of 2008(F) -------------------------- EP.66/2006 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER: ------------ RAMESHKUMAR,VALIYAPARAMBU, ODANNUR DESOM PARALI I VILLAGE, PALAKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.ROY CHACKO RESPONDENTS: ------------- PARALI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. 6808,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PARALI POST PALAKKAD DIST. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.23785 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 7th August, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the judgment debtor in E.P.No.66/2006. Execution petition was filed for execution of the award passed in A.R.C.No.1720 of 2005, dated, 14.2.2006, whereunder petitioner is to pay Rs.4,12,557/= with interest at the rate of 14.5%. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging Ext.P4 sale proclamation issued by the court. 2. The case of the petitioner is that value of the property directed to be sold, per cent would exceed Rs.1.5 lakhs , and for realisation of the debt due under the award, it is not necessary to sell the entire extent of more than 42 cents, and the executing court did not consider the mandatory provision of Rule 54 of Order XXI of Code of Civil Procedure before directing sale. Learned counsel also argued that executing court did not grant an opportunity to the petitioner to raise objection to the sale papers before directing sale, and, therefore, Ext.P4 order is to be quashed. W.P.(C) No.23785/2008 2 3. In view of the order to be passed in this petition, I do not find it necessary to issue notice to the respondent, and thereby protract the proceedings further. 4. Ext.P3 objection filed by the petitioner shows that he has raised a contention before the executing court itself that the value of the property sought to be sold exceeds Rs.75 lakhs, and the value per cent is more than Rs.1.5 lakhs, and there is a building worth more than Rs.30 lakhs in the property. Though under second proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 66 of Order XXI of Code of Civil Procedure, executing court is not bound to enter its own value of the property, it mandates that the value of the property claimed by the judgment debtor shall also be shown in the sale proclamation. Ext.P4 shows that only the upset price of Rs.4.5 lakhs is shown therein, and note the value claimed by petitioner. 5. In such circumstances, decree holder is to be directed to show the value of the property claimed by the judgment debtor in Ext.P3 objection also in the sale proclamation. 6. Therefore, Ext.P4 sale proclamation is quashed. Executing court is directed to consider the objection and pass fresh W.P.(C) No.23785/2008 3 order for proclamation of sale. Executing court shall also consider and decide the question whether the entire property is to be sold or by sale of a portion of the property, the decree debt could be realised. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj.