IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2010 / 12TH MAGHA 1931 FAO.No. 85 of 2008() -------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23/10/2007 IN EA.26/2005,EP.172/1997 IN OS.129/1984 of ADDL.SUB COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT:PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------- THRESSIAMMA JOSEPH, W/O.LATE JOSEPH, C/O.LEEJA MARTIN, N.23, BHARATHI DASAN STREET PARIAKALAPET, PONDICHERRY-14. BY ADVS. MR.J.OM PRAKASH, MR.P.GEORGE WILLIAM. RESPONDENT(S): CR.PETITIONERS/DECREE HOLDER/AUCTION PURCHASER & JUDGMENT DEBTORS 1 & 3 TO 8: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, PATHIRAPPALLY BRANCH, ALAPUZHA. 2. V.J.FRANCIS, LISSA BHAVAN, POOMKAVU, PATHIRAPPALLY VILLAGE, ALAPUZHA. 3. THOMAS PARATHARA, PARATHARA VALIYA VEEDU, CHETTIKADU MURI, ALAPUZHA. 4. THANKAMMA THOMAS, PARATHARA VALIYA VEEDU, CHETTIKADU MURI, ALAPUZHA. 5. MAMACHAN, PARATHARA VALIYA VEEDU, CHETTIKADU MURI, ALAPUZHA. 6. JOHN BRITTO, PARATHARA VALIYA VEEDU, CHETTIKADU MURI, ALAPUZHA. 7. PETER, PARATHARA VALIYA VEEDU, CHETTIKADU MURI, ALAPUZHA. 8. LUSIAMMA JOSEPH, PARATHARA VALIYA VEEDU, CHETTIKADU MURI, ALAPUZHA. 9. SHINE, PARATHARA VALIYA VEEDU, CHETTIKADU MURI, ALAPUZHA. R1 BY ADVS. MR.SATHISH NINAN, MR.SANTHOSH MATHEW, R2 BY ADV. MR.ANIL K.NARENDRAN. THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON I.A.NO.4165/2009 IN FAO NO.85/2008 DISMISSED 01/02/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... F.A.O.No.85 OF 2008 ............................................. Dated this the 1st day of February, 2010. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the order of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Alappuzha in E.A.26/2005 in E.P.No.172/1997 in O.S.No.129/1984. The application is captioned as filed under Section 47 read with Order 21 Rule 90 of the CPC. By virtue of the decision of this Court in Rajarethana Naikkan v. Parameswara Kurup (1997 (1) KLT 777), it is laid down very clearly that in a case where the judgment debtor invokes Section 47 of CPC, Order 21 Rule 90 cannot be applied. So, I ascertained from the learned counsel for the appellant that whether the appeal is prosecuted under Section 47 or Order 21 Rule 90. The learned counsel would submit that the case is prosecuted under Section 47 and not under order 21 Rule 90. If it is not under Order 21 Rule 90, an appeal will not lie against the order. There may be remedies available under Section 47 which the present appellant may be able to raise in an appropriate form if permissible by law. : 2 : F.A.O.No.85 OF 2008 2. So, I dispose of the FAO without going into the merits of the case making it clear that since the appellant wants to pursue her remedy only against an order under Section 47, the appeal will not lie and the FAO is dismissed making it clear that it will not debar the appellant from approaching the appropriate forum in accordance with law. The learned counsel wants some time to approach the appropriate forum and therefore as a matter of grace, I grant time till 20.2.2010 with a direction not to effect delivery of the property till that date. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 3 : F.A.O.No.85 OF 2008