IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2009 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1931 FAO.No. 107 of 2004() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06/11/2003 IN EA 483/02 IN EP 318/2000 IN OS.188/1999 of PRL.SUB COURT,IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS/JUDGMENT DEBTORS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. P.B. SUNIL KUMAR, S/O. BALACHANDRAN, PUNNAKKATHARAYIL HOUSE, EMMADU P.O., KOOLIMUTTAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. 2. P.K. BALACHANDRAN, S/O. KRISHNAN, PUNNAKKATHARAYIL HOUSE, EMMADU P.O., KOOLIMUTTAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/DECREE HOLDER: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD., SREE NARAYANAPURAM BRANCH, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. ADV. SRI.PETER THARAKAN FOR R1 THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - F.A.O. No. 107 of 2004 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27th day of May, 2009. JUDGMENT Raman, J, Counsel for the appellant submits that he has no instructions. Name of the parties called. Absent. Further as per order dated 28.6.2004 interim stay was granted on condition of deposit of Rs.1,00,000/-, which has not been complied with. 2. Further, the appeal is against an order dismissing a petition filed under Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to set aside the sale. The main grievance of the appellants was that the property sold will fetch a higher value, but was actually sold at a lesser amount and the respondent had not complied with the legal requirements. This was resisted by the respondent by filing a written statement. The court below considered whether the grounds urged are true and whether they are sufficient to set aside the same. After perusing the records the court found that the upset price was fixed at Rs.8,17,000/- as per order dated 4.9.2001, that too after considering the objection of the judgment debtor. Property was thereafter brought for sale. Sale was adjourned at the request of counsel for the judgment FAO.107/2004. 2 debtor. Draft proclamation contains estimate of the decree holder as also that of the judgment debtors. Further the commission report Ext.C1 also shows that the valuation has been done correctly. Thus, there is no material irregularity in the procedure adopted by the court below. There is no merit in the appeal. For all the above reasons, the appeal is dismissed. P.R. Raman, Judge P. Bhavadasan, Judge sb.