IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2008 / 21ST ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 29492 of 2008(J) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- VESU, W/O.RAMAN, KANDUMARIL, PULLODU, THENNUR POST, PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.LAKSHMINARAYANAN RESPONDENT: --------------------- PARALI CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., PARLI POST, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C). No. 29492 OF 2008 --------------------- Dated this the 13th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed to set aside the order of sale dated 26.7.08 and consequent sale conducted on 26.7.08 in EP 224/04 in ARC 405/01on the file of the Sub Court, Palakkad, and also for a direction granting sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to remit the amount due in instalments. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioner. A perusal of the writ petition and Ext.P4 would reveal that the sale has been held on 26.7.08 and it has been posted for confirmation of sale on 26.9.08. When a sale is conducted, two modes are contemplated under Order XXI Rule 89 and Order XXI Rule 90. When Order XXI Rule 90 is resorted, a petition under Order XXI Rule 89 will not lie. If the application for setting aside the sale is filed in time, i.e. within the statutory period, everything will ultimately depend on the decision on that application. Therefore, with that observation the writ petition is dismissed. I make it clear that if the sale is not already confirmed, it will be deferred till a decision is taken in the application to set aside the sale. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps 2