IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 19TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 28TH BHADRA 1933 OP(C).No. 1934 of 2011(O) -------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09/03/2011 IN EP 39/2011 IN OS.210/2000 of PRL.SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA .................... PETITIONER/DECREE HOLDER: -------------------------------------------- MANUELSONS FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES (P) LTD M.O.ROAD, THRISSUR-1. BY ADVS. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) SMT.R.RAJITHA RESPONDENTS/JUDGMENT DEBTORS : -------------------------------------------------------- 1. V.C.BALACHANDRAN, S/O.CHANDRASEKHARN, KOORKANCHERY VILLAGE & DESOM, PIN-680 007, THRISSUR TALUK. 2. SATHI NARAYANAN, S/O.MUTTICHUR NARAYANAN, CHENDRAPPINNI VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. P.O. 680687. 3. LAHAR, S/O.MUTTICHUR NARAYANAN, CHENDRAPPINNI VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. P.O. 680687. ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) FOR R1 SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) FOR R1 THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(C).No. 1934 of 2011(O) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE IN O.S.210/2000 DATED 14/11/2000 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN E.P.39/2001 IN O.S.NO.210/2000 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.12.2007 IN CRP 608/2006 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.11.2008 IN R.P.NO.1206/2008 IN CRP. 608/2006 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.10420/2010 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT EXHIBIT P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN E.P.39/2011 IN O.S.NO.210/2000 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE ln THOMAS P JOSEPH, J ----------------------------------- O.P(C)No. 1934 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT The order dated 09.03.2011 in E.P. No.39 of 2001 in O.S. NO. 210 of 2000 of the Court of learned Sub Judge, Irinjalakuda directing petitioner/decree holder to produce fair value certificate is under challenge. Petitioner has obtained a decree for recovery of money by sale of the mortgaged property against the respondent. 74 ½ cents which is the mortgage property was brought up for sale. Executing Court directed that it is sufficient to sell a portion of the mortgage property. Petitioner successfully challenged that order in CRP No. 608 of 2006. Respondents sought review of the said order, but, the request was turned down, vide Ext.P4 , order. Respondents challenged Ext.P3 order in CRP NO. 608 of 2006 in the Supreme Court, but failed in their attempt. In the meantime the executing court on 20.02.2010 fixed reserve price for the property at Rs.5,55,970/-. It was also directed that the market price suggested by the respondents be shown in the sale proclamation. The sale however, could not take place within one month. Thereafter, a fresh order was passed by the executing Court on 19.03.2011 directing petitioner to produce the fair value certificate. That order is under challenge. 2 OP(C) No. 1934 of 2011 2. It is contended by learned counsel that since reserve price has already been fixed on 20.02.2010 it is not necessary to refix the same. It is also contended by the learned counsel that what is required is only to incorporate in sale proclamation the market price suggested by the respondents also. 3. Learned counsel for respondents contended that since leave is granted to the petitioner to take part in the bid, Rule 72 A (2) of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure required the Court to fix reserve price of the property and, since the sale did not take place within one month from the original date fixed for the purose, fresh proclamation is to be made. It is for the said purpose that the executing court has directed petitioner to produce fair value certificate. 4. Having regard to statutory provisions referred above I am inclined to accept the argument of learned counsel for respondent. As such there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Original Petition fails. It is dismissed. THOMAS P JOSEPH JUDGE dnc