IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2009 / 12TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 10776 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.158/2002 of SUB COURT, OTTAPPALAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. P.SASIKALA, W/O.RAMANKUTTY, 48 YEARS, THOTTUMPURATH HOUSE, MAYAKAD POST, SHORANUR, OTTAPALAM TALUK. 2. T.R.SAJEEV, S/O.RAMANKUTTY, THOTTUMPURATH HOUSE, MAYAKAD POST, SHORANUR, OTTAPALAM TALUK. BY ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI SRI.R.SREEHARI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- MANAPPURAM ASSET FINANCE LIMITED, SHORNUR (FORMERLY LFC HIRE PURCHASE CO. LTD.,) REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ---------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.10776 of 2009 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 2ndday of April, 2009 JUDGMENT The judgment debtors in E.P.No.89 of 2006 in O.S.No.158 of 2002, on the file of the Subordinate Judge's court, Ottappalam, have filed this Writ Petition with a prayer to quash the proceedings for sale of the property as evidenced by Ext.P5 proclamation. The sale is scheduled to be held on 6.4.2009. 2. The decree was passed on 9.3.2004. The decree is for payment of money. The property belonging to the petitioners was mortgaged. The objection in the Execution Petition was that the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of clause (c) of the proviso to Sub Section (1) of Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Since there is a mortgage, Section 60 is not applicable. When the draft sale proclamation was issued, the petitioners raised an objection that the property should be sold in two lots. The total extent of the property is 2.5 cents. There is no meaning in the contention that the property should be sold in WPC No.10776/2009 2 two lots, since the extent is too small. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are very poor and that the property sought to be sold is their residential building. The Writ Petition is not maintainable for the reliefs claimed. No grounds are made out for invoking the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. If the prayer of the petitioners is to adjourn the sale, they could very well approach the executing court and pray for adjournment of sale after paying a reasonable amount in which case the executing court will certainly consider the request. With these observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl