IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 19TH JULY 2010 / 28TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 22428 of 2010(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN EP 27/09 IN OS.151/1997 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT,NEDUMANGAD .................... PETITIONER: --------------- IBRAHIM KUNJU, S/O.PAREETH KUNJU, CHANTHAVILA VEEDU, MANICKEL MURI, NELLANAD VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.KESAVAN NAIR RESPONDENT: --------------- P.M.BASHEER, KADAYIL VILAKATHU VEEDU, MANICKAL MURI, NELLANAD VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD TALUK. - 695 541 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.C.No.22428 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 19th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT Judgment debtor in E.P.No.27 of 2009 in O.S.No.151 of 1997 of the court of learned Prinicipal Munsiff, Nedumangad is the petitioner. Trial court passed a decree for redemption of mortgage. First appellate court modified extent of property as 1.25 cents. That was challenged in this court in S.A.No.708 of 2002. It was contended on behalf of petitioner/judgment debtor/appellant that subsequent to the decree portion of the decree schedule property was taken for formation of a panchayath road and the original property as shown in decree schedule is not available. Petitioner apprehended that to make up the extent of 1.25 cents decree holder might take possession of remaining property belonging to petitioner. This court while disposing of the second appeal directed that the if petitioner has got any apprehension of redemption of any other land that can be agitated at the time of execution proceedings since the property was already identified in the preliminary decree stage itself. Based on that observation, petitioner filed E.A.No.102 of 2010 in the executing court to an Advocate Commissioner to ascertain W.P.C.No.22428 of 2010 : 2 : whether the 1.25 cents shown in Ext.C2(a), plan is in available for deliverly. Executing court dismissed that application vide Ext.P3, order. That order is under challenge. Learned counsel states that under guise of executing the decree in respect of 1.25 cents there is possibility of property otherwise belonging to the petitioner being delivered over to the respondent/decree holder. 2. I do not find any reason for such an apprehension since executing court had made clear that the disputed plot is shown in Ext.C2(a), plan and that it is for the respondent/decree holder to prove that the said property is still available for delivery. The executing court has also stated that assistance of Surveyor and Advocate Commissioner can be made use of. That direction is sufficient to allay apprehension of petitioner. I do not find reason to interfere. Writ petition is dismissed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-