IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 29TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 5695 of 2008(C) ------------------------- EP.57/2005 of SUB COURT, QUILANDY .................... PETITIONER: ------------ J.G.PRAKASAN, MEPPAYYUR AMSOM, CHANGARAMVALLY DESOM. BY ADV. SRI.M.NARENDRA KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. MEPPAYUR CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY, BY ITS SECRETARY, MEPPAYYUR. 2. SALINI, MEPPAYYUR AMSOM, CHANGARAMVALLY DESOM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 5695 OF 2008 --------------------- Dated this the 18th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is preferred against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Koyilandy in EP 57/05. The said EP is for realisation of the amount by sale of the mortgaged property. 2. On many occasions, the writ petitioner has approached this court and this court has directed him to pay an amount of Rs.1 lakh within a stipulated period of time and to pay the balance amount in ten monthly equal instalments. Petitioner did not pay Rs. 1 lakh as ordered by the court but only paid an amount of Rs.70,000/-. Thereafter he again came to this court with another application. This court again directed him to pay Rs.30,000/-. Ultimately, the petitioner did not pay the amount using the instalment facility provided by this court. The said order was a self working order whereby in case of default the decree holder was entitled to proceed against the property. At the instance of the parties, a Commissioner was appointed and he had visited the property and demarcated the property as “A” plot and “B” plot. “A” plot was valued at Rs. 3 ½ WPC NO 5695/08 2 lakhs. Now the contention of the writ petitioner is that “A” plot may be sold and the balance amount may be ordered to be paid by the petitioner in six monthly equal instalments. 3. At the outset, I may have to hold that being a mortgaged decree in the light of the decision reported in Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd. v. Divakaran (2000 (2) KLT 231) this court cannot allow the sale of property in lots, as the decree does not provide for the same and the instalment facility already granted has been totally disobeyed by the petitioner also. Therefore, I feel that the court has bestowed its best attention and had passed a proper order, which does not call for any interference. The writ petition lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps WPC NO 5695/08 3