IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2010 / 22ND ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 23080 of 2010(O) -------------------------- EP 321/2008 IN OS.468/2001 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- KHADEEJA, AGED 58, W/O.RAYAM MARKAR VEETIL HAMSA, R.V.NIVAS, GURUVAYOOR, IRINGAPURAM AMSOM, THIRUVENGIDOM DESOM CHAVAKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- M.SUNDARA RAJAN, S/O.MUTHUSWAMI, 5/920, QUAYALAKKODU, KALLEPULLY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678001. ADV. SRI.P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.23080 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of October, 2010. JUDGMENT One of the judgment debtors in E.P.No.321 of 2008 in O.S.No.468 of 2001 of the Court of learned Principal Sub Judge, Thrissur is the petitioner, challenging Ext.P5, order dated June 10, 2010. As per the said order learned Sub Judge directed proclamation and sale of item Nos.1 and 2 properties on 27.07.2010. There was also a direction to publish the sale in a vernacular daily and report on 28.07.2010. In this petition it was contended that order of the executing court directing sale of both items is not correct as provisions of Order XXI, Rule 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”) is not complied. It was contended that executing court did not consider whether sale of one item of property is sufficient to discharge the decree debt. 2. It is admitted by counsel on both sides that item No.1 property alone was sold on the due date. According to the learned counsel for respondent, sale of item No.1 did not satisfy the decree debt and respondent is entitled to proceed against item No.2. Learned counsel for petitioner states that information he received is that one of the judgment debtors interested in item No.1 has moved a petition under Order XXI Rule 89 of the Code and that application is pending. WP(C) No.23080/2010 2 3. Whatever that be, challenge in this Writ Petition is only against simultaneous sale of item Nos.1 and 2 . That contingency does not now exist since item No.1 alone was conducted. Virtually this Writ Petition has become infructuous. Writ Petition is closed as infructuous. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks