IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2010 / 9TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).NO. 18914 OF 2009(O) ---------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN EA.159/09 INEP.16/08 IN ARC.2870/2006 OF SUB COURT, TIRUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- ACHAMBATT RUKHIYA, D/O. HAMZA KOYA, NEDUVA AMSOM, DESOM, POST PARAPPANANGADI, NEAR B.M.L.P.SCHOOL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- THE SECRETARY, PARAPPANANGADI CO-OPERATIVE SERVICE BANK LTD.NO. F.2302, PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER FOR R1 SRI.G.SIJI FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== W.P(C) No.18914 of 2009 ==================================== Dated this the 30th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T Judgment debtor in E.P. No.16 of 2008 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Tirur where an award obtained by the respondent – a Service Co-operative Bank in A.R.C. No.2870 of 2006 is being executed, is the petitioner. Exhibit P7 is the execution petition preferred by the respondent pursuant to Ext.P1, award in its favour. In the meantime State Government came with a Scheme for settlement of liability of loanees from Service Co-operative Banks and accordingly Assistant Registrar issued Ext.P2, order directing petitioner to deposit Rs.7,26,083/- on or before 29.02.2008. It was also directed in the said order that if the amount is not paid within the said time petitioner will not be entitled to avail benefit under that Scheme. Petitioner could not remit the amount, according to the respondent within the said time but he remitted only a portion of the amount. Petitioner filed Ext.P5, application to the respondent for extension of time. She also tried her luck in this Court by preferring W.P(C) No.10553 of 2008 seeking extension of time but the said Writ Petition was W.P(C) No.18914 of 2009 -: 2 :- dismissed as infructuous. Thereafter petitioner preferred Ext.P8, objection to the execution petition claiming that she has already discharged the liability of respondent in the light of Ext.P2, order and no further amount is due to the respondent. Grievance of petitioner is that in spite of that objection she is being asked by the executing court to deposit further amount. Petitioner requests that a direction may be issued to the executing court to consider and decide her objection and keep in abeyance sale of the property till objection is decided. I have heard learned counsel for respondent also. Having regard to the facts and circumstances presented before me I direct the executing court to dispose of Ext.P8, objection if it has not already been done before proceeding with sale of the property. I also direct that if Ext.P8, objection has not so far been disposed of, sale of the property will stand in abeyance till the objection is disposed of. Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv