IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2011 / 11TH JYAISHTA 1933 FAO.No. 55 of 2011() ------------------------------ EA. 60/2008 IN EP. 10/2003 IN OS.286/1996 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS/JUDGEMENT DEBTORS ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. VISALAKSHI, D/O.LATE KOTTAMPULLY NARAYANAN EZHUTHASSAN, CHOORAKATTUKARA DESOM, PUZHAKKAL VILLAGE, THRISSUR 2. MOHANAVALLY, D/O.LATE KOTTAMPULLY NARAYANAN EZHUTHASSAN, CHOORAKATTUKARA DESOM, PUZHAKKAL VILLAGE, THRISSUR BY ADVS. SRI.N.NARAYANAN NAIR SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.RAJAN VELLOTH SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.RAFEEK. V.K. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/DECREE HOLDER ------------------------------------------------------------------------- THE CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD., MUTHUVARA BRANCH, REP. BY BRANCH MANAGER. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.K.ANAND (A.201) SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan & S.S.Satheesachandran, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = F.A.O.No.55 of 2011 with C.M.Appl.No.386 of 2011 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 1st day of June, 2011. Judgment Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1.This appeal is filed with an application seeking condonation of delay of 349 days saying that the first appellant had physical ailments relatable to old age. 2.Two of the legal representatives of the original judgment debtor applied to have the sale in the course of execution of a decree for money set aside. That application was dismissed by the court below. The plea was fundamentally regarding the value of the property. We do not find that there was any ground raised in opposition to the sale that could be treated as an illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the matter of publishing and conducting the sale. Taking into consideration the stand that only an amount of RFA55/11 -: 2 :- Rs.1,50,000/- was the sale consideration, we thought it appropriate to give the appellants an opportunity to save the property from sale. We, therefore, passed the following order on 8.3.2011: “Adv.Latha Krishnan appears for the bank. She will get instructions from the respondent as to whether there could be a negotiated settlement, including by recourse to ADR mechanism. Post on 28/3/11 in the admission list.” 3.On 28.3.2011, we passed the following order: “We adjourn this matter for further consideration by two months on the premise that the appellants will deposit an amount of Rs.1,65,000/- with the bank by that time out of which, an amount of Rs.65,000/- shall be paid within one month. Further action against the property will stand stayed for the said period of two months. Post on 30.5.11.” 4.When this matter is taken up yesterday and today, RFA55/11 -: 3 :- it is reported that the appellants did not pay any amount pursuant to the aforesaid orders. 5.Having found that there is no illegality, irregularity or impropriety, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. In the result, the appeal fails. For such reason, we do not find any cause to condone the delay. The appeal and the application for condonation of delay are accordingly dismissed. Since the bank itself is the auction purchaser, we find that this judgment will not stand in the way of the appellants seeking any relief directly from the bank in relation to the transaction and the property. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. S.S.Satheesachandran, Judge. Sha/1706