IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2010 / 12TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).NO. 10420 OF 2010(O) ---------------------------------------- OS.210/2000 OF PRL.SUB COURT,IRINJALAKUDA .................... PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- V.C.BALACHANDRAN, AGED 48, S/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN, KOORAKANCHERY VILLAGE & DESOM,THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ MANUEL SONS FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES(P)LTD. THRISSUR-1. ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) SMT.R.RAJITHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX --------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: ---------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO.210 OF 2000 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, THRISSUR DATED 1.7.2000. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN CRP NO.608 OF 2006 DATED 13.12.2007 ON THE FILE OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN R.P. NO.1206 OF 2008 IN CRP NO.608 OF 2006 DATED 11.11.2008 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE SLP(C) NO.109891/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT DATED NIL. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN E.P. NO.39 OF 2001 IN O.S. NO.210 OF 200 DATED 20.1.2010 OF THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: ----------------------------------- NIL TRUE COPY THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== W.P(C) No.10420 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 03rd day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T Judgment debtor in E.P. No.39 of 2001 in O.S. No.210 of 2000 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Irinjalakuda is the petitioner. He challenges Ext.P5, order settling proclamation for sale of mortgaged property. Petitioner raised a contention in the executing court that sale of a portion of the mortgaged property alone is sufficient to discharge liability under the decree. That contention was upheld by the executing court which respondent successfully challenged in this Court. Petitioner then sought review of the order in this Court which did not succeed. Order on the review petition is now challenged in the Supreme Court and is pending consideration of the Supreme Court, states learned counsel. 2. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case I direct that interim order of say passed by this Court will remain in force for a period of fifteen (15) days from this day or till the Supreme Court passed appropriate orders on the application W.P(C) No.10420 of 2010 -: 2 :- for stay, whichever is earlier. Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv