IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 29189 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN EP86/2006 IN OS.78/2002 of ADDL.SUB COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- MUTHOOT BANKERS, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, GEORGE ALEXANDER, PUTHENVEETTIL BUILDING, PAZHAVANGADI, RANNY, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANILAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. TITTO ABRAHAM, S/O. P.J. ABRAHAM, PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, KAINADY P.O. ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. ANCY TITTO, PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, KAINADY P.O.,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 3. SUNIL JACOB, S/O. JOSEPH, PALLONATH HOUSE,KOTTAYAM - 1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC.29189/09 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE DECREE DATED 29.1.2003 IN O.S.NO.78/2002 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SUB JUDGE, ALAPPUZHA. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE E.P.NO.86/2006 IN O.S.NO.78/02 FILED BY THE DECREE HOLDER BEFORE SUB COURT, ALAPPUZHA. EXT.P3: COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 15.1.2009 IN W.P.(C).NO.995/09 OF THIS HONOURABLE HIGH COURT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT OF SALE FILED BY 1ST JUDGMENT DEBTOR IN E.P.NO.86/06 IN O.S.NO.78/02. EXT.P5: COPY OF OBJECTION FILED BY THE ADVOCATE FOR DECREE HOLDER IN E.A. IN E.P.86/06 IN O.S.NO.78/02. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE APPLICATION E.A.342/2009 FILED BY THE JUDGMENT DEBTORS SEEKING TO APPOINT A COMMISSION FOR VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 2.4.2009 IN W.P.(C).NO.9096/2009. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.29189 OF 2009 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the decree holder in O.S.No.78 of 2002 on the file of the Sub Court, Alappuzha. The decree executed in the above suit is passed in a suit for money. The execution petition filed as E.P.No.86 of 2006 is now pending consideration before the execution court, in which, the property of the judgment debtors having an extent of five acres of land after settlement of proclamation is posted for sale. Every time the sale is posted, it is adjourned on one or other grounds canvassed by the judgment debtors, is the grievance canvassed by the decree holder seeking issue of appropriate writ/order/direction to the execution court to court and conclude the sale of the property in execution of the decree. WPC.29189/09 2 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Inviting my attention to Ext.P3 judgment, which was rendered in a previous writ petition filed by the 1st judgment debtor, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 1st judgment debtor had not complied with the directions given under that judgment though this Court had shown indulgence in acceding to his request for raising funds to discharge the decree debt, after lifting attachment, by mortgaging the property, which is proceeded for sale, to a bank. Though several opportunities had been executed to the 1st judgment debtor and despite getting a favourable order from this Court, he has not cleared the decree debt and has not taken any step to avoid the sale, according to the counsel. In the circumstances, it is urged that appropriate directions/orders be issued to the court below for completion of the execution proceedings with the conduct of the sale so that the decree holder may enjoy the fruits of the decree. Though notice given, the respondents/judgment debtors have not entered appearance. Perusing Ext.P3 judgment with reference to the submissions made by the learned counsel, I find some force WPC.29189/09 3 that completion of the execution proceedings expeditiously is essential to advance the ends of justice. However, it is not proper and appropriate for this Court to fix a time frame directing the execution court in the matter of conducting of the sale nor of its confirmation. The execution court has to take note of the pleas raised by the judgment debtors previously, and in case, it is satisfied that the recalcitrant attitude of the judgment debtors is delaying the execution proceedings and obstructing its completion, needless to state, it has to pass appropriate orders and avoid unnecessary adjournments in the conduct of sale. If sufficient ground is not made out for adjourning the sale, the execution court has to proceed with the conduct of the sale. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is closed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp