IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 30TH APRIL 2010 / 10TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 14064 of 2010(O) -------------------------- OS.314/1985 of MUNSIFF COURT, CHANGANACHERRY .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- OUSEPH JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, MANIMURI, VADAKKEKKARA VEETTIL, KOTTAMURI, THRICODITHANAM MURI THRICODITHANAM VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADV. SMT.RUBY K.JOSE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- ANNAMMA THOMAS,D/O.THOMAS, MADATHINAL VEETTIL, MAMMOOTTIL, MADAPPALLY MURI, MADAPPALLY VILLAGE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.14064 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of April, 2010. JUDGMENT This Writ Petition is filed by the defendant in O.S.No.314 of 1985 seeking a direction to the learned Munsiff, Changanacherry to dispose of Exts.P6 and P7 and to set aside the auction held on 22.09.1989 and the consequent confirmation of sale. Respondent, wife of petitioner filed the suit claiming return of sreedhana amount and other amounts allegedly due to her. According to the petitioner, in the meantime he was assaulted by the men of respondent and on account of that, he could not contest the suit properly which ultimately resulted in an exparte decree on 17.01.1986 for payment of Rs.50,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Respondent put the decree in execution, property of petitioner - 12 ½ cents was put in auction and purchased by respondent. Sale was confirmed in favour of respondent for Rs.19,047/-. In the meantime, petitioner has approached the court of learned Munsiff with an application to set aside the exparte decree and an application to condone the delay in filing that application (Exts.P6 and P7). Learned counsel submits that it was on account of inability of petitioner to appear in the court on account of attack on him by the men of respondent that exparte decree happened to be passed. It is contended by learned counsel that valuable property extending to 12 ½ cents has been sold for a paltry sum of Rs.19,047/- . WP(C) No.14064/2010 2 2. It is not disputed that the sale has been confirmed. If there was any defect in the sale of property, that ought to have been sought to be set aside as provided under Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure and not by way of invoking jurisdiction of this Court either under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution. Therefore request for interference with the auction and its confirmation as per Ext.P4 cannot be entertained in this Writ Petition. 3. So far as petition to set aside exparte decree and to condone the delay in filing that application is concerned, the prayer is to direct learned Munsiff to consider and dispose of the said applications within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. I am not inclined to think that it is proper to give such a direction without understanding the volume of work of the court concerned. However I direct the learned Munsiff to dispose of Exts.P6 and P7, applications as expeditiously as possible if necessary steps are completed. With the above direction Writ Petition is dismissed in limine. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks