IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 16TH AUGUST 2010 / 25TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 6206 of 2010(O) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN EP 511/06 IN OS.382/1999 of I ADDL.SUB COURT, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER: --------------- SATHEESH KUMAR @ SASI KUMAR, AGED 43, S/O. LATE K.K.BALAKRISHNAN, VRINDAVAN HOUSE, NO.20, GOLF LINK ROAD, KOWDIYAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENT: --------------- THE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BRANCH, THRISSUR, RP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, THRISSUR.P.O., THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 6206 of 2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 : DECREE IN O.S.No.383 OF 1999 DTD. 20.02.2006 ON THE FILE OF THE FIRST ADDL. SUB COURT, THRISSUR EXHIBIT P2 : OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY the PETITIONER IN E.P.No.511 OF 2006 IN O.S.No.383 OF 1999 DTD. 13.01.2008 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SUB COURT, THRISSUR EXHIBIT P3 : ORDER PASSED IN E.P.No.511 OF 2006 IN O.S.No.383 OF 1999 DTD. 15.01.2010 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SUB COURT, THRISSUR RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL True Copy P.A to Judge THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.C.No. 6206 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 16th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed by judgment debtor No.2 challenging Ext.P3, order dated 15-01-2010 in E.P.No.511 of 2006 in O.S.No.382 of 1999 of the court of learned Additional Sub Judge-II, Thrissur. Petitioner preferred his objection to the proclamation schedule which was accepted by the executing court and accordingly proclamation was settled. Now contention of petitioner is that there are two items brought up for sale and sale of one item of property is sufficient to discharge the liability. But no evidence was adduced to show that sale of one item is sufficient to discharge the liability. At the time of hearing, learned counsel requested that petitioner may be granted some time to discharge the liability. There is no reason to interfere with Ext.P3, order. 2. On the request of petitioner that time, I have heard counsel for respondent as well. Considering the amount involved and circumstances stated by learned counsel I am inclined to permit petitioner discharge the liability within four months beginning from 01-09-2010 onwards. W.P.C.No.6206 of 2010 : 2 : Resultantly this writ petition is dismissed. Petitioner is permitted to pay the amount due under the decree in monthly installments beginning from 01-09-2010. The deposit shall not be less than Rs.15,000/- per month but by the last installment the entire balance amount shall be paid. The deposit shall be made before 5th of every month. It is made clear that in case there is default to deposit any two installments it will be open to the respondent to proceed with sale of the property pursuant to Ext.P3, order. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-