IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH MAY 2010 / 29TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 6347 of 2010(O) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22/02/2008 IN EP.75/2008 IN OS.212/2006 of SUB COURT, TIRUR .................... PETITIONER: --------------- PRAMEELA, W/O. MURUTHACHALAM, MELOTTUMKAVIL HOUSE, MANKADA AMSOM DESOM,MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN SRI.P.G.SURESH SMT.K.VIDYA SRI.M.R.VIBIN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE MANAGER, CANARA BANK, RERUNTHALMANNA BRANCH, MALAPPURAM. 2. MOHAMMED RAFEEK, PROP:COTTON LAND SHOP NO.V332, PATTAMBI ROAD, PERUNTHALMANNA. 3. N. KUNJAYAMMU, S/O. HAMZA NAMBULLY HOUSE ARACKUPARAMBU AMSOM, MALAPPURAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.C.No.6347 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 19th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed by the judgment debtor in E.P.No.75 of 2008 in O.S.No.212 of 2006 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Tirur. Respondent No.1 obtained decree for recovery of Rs.4,29,300/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. It launched execution for recovery of Rs.5,06,574/- and the property of petitioner/judgment debtor-1 was proclaimed for sale as per Ext.P2. That is under challenge in the writ petition contending that the entire property was not required to be sold. 2. When the writ petition came up for hearing on 01-03- 2010 this court issued an interim order of stay against confirmation of sale for a period of one month on condition that petitioner paid Rs.50,000/- to respondent No.1 within one month from that day. Later on the request of petitioner, time for deposit of the amount was extended by one week as per order dated 06-05-2010. Still the direction has not been complied, it is complained by learned counsel for respondent No.1. Learned counsel for petitioner also admits that the said condition has not been complied. 3. So far as the challenge to execute Ext.P2 is concerned, the property brought up for sale is 48 cents. The upset price fixed W.P.C.No.6347 of 2010 : 2 : is Rs.5,00,000/-. There is nothing on record to show that the upset price fixed is low. Having regard to the circumstances stated by learned counsel there is no reason why this court should interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution at this stage. Resultantly the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the right if any of the petitioner to challenge the sale if any, conducted pursuant to Ext.P2 on appropriate grounds as provided under law. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-