IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 28TH AUGUST 2008 / 6TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 25929 of 2008(J) --------------------------------------- OS.262/1995 OF SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- THOMAS, S/O. VARKEY, CHETTOOR HOUSE, PIRAKUNNAM KARA, KUTTAMANGALAM, VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.ELAYATH. RESPONDENT: --------------------- MAMENT T.JOSE S/O.JOSE, THARAYIL HOUSE, MANJALLOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/08/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... WP(C).No. 25929 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF AUGUST, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the defendant and respondent, the decree holder in O.S.262 of 1995 on the file of Sub Court, Moovattupuzha. This petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India contending that Ext.P1 order issued by the court is illegal and the upset price fixed is inadequate and if a portion of the property is sold, decree holder could realise the decree debt and therefore the entire property need not be sold. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner was heard. The argument of the learned counsel is that upset price fixed for the property is only Rupees Fifteen Lakhs and the value of the property would be Rupees One Crore and the entire property need not be sold. Learned counsel also pointed out that as per Ext.P1, the date fixed for sale is 29.8.2007 and not 2008 and therefore Ext.P1 is to be quashed. 3. Learned counsel also submitted that petitioner did not file any objection to the notice issued under Rule 66 of Order XXI of Code of Civil Procedure and served on the petitioner, disputing the value of the property claimed by the decree holder. Second proviso to sub-rule 2 of Rule 66 of Order XXI of Code of Civil Procedure does not contemplate an enquiry being conducted by the executing court and WP(C) 25929/2008 2 entering its own value of the property in the sale proclamation. It only provides that the value of the property claimed by the decree holder and judgment debtor, if any is to be shown. In such circumstances, for the failure of the executing court to enter its estimated value of the property in the sale proclamation or the inadequacy of the value shown is not a ground to interfere with the sale proclamation, in exercise of the powers of this court under Article 227 of Constitution of India. So also, when petitioner did not appear and contended that the entire property need not be sold and only a portion of the property need be sold, it cannot be said that the order of executing court directing sale of the entire property is illegal. 4. Then the only other submission is that the year of Ext.P1 sale proclamation is 2007 and not 2008. Petitioner did not produce the order passed by the court directing proclamation for sale. Therefore looking at Ext.P1 alone, it cannot be said that proclamation is of 2007. Writ petition is disposed making it clear that, if there is any defect in the sale proclamation, executing court has to proclaim the sale afresh and direct sale. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-