IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2010 / 27TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 8691 of 2010(O) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN EP 64/09 IN OS.114/2008 of SUB COURT, MANJERI .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- ABDUL SALEEM.P.P, S/O. MUHAMMEDALI, PARAKOTTUPALATH HOUSE, VELLILA.P.O, MANKADA VIA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE MANAGER, CANARA BANK, PERINTHALMANNA BRANCH, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY P. THOMAS SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.S.RAMU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO.8691/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF EXECUTION PETITION EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF COUNTER AFFIDAVIT IN EP 64/2009 IN OS 114/2008 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 4.2.2010 EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF COUNTER AFFIDAVIT IN EA 58/2010 IN EP 64/2009 //TRUE COPY// THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.8691 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of June, 2010. JUDGMENT Order dated 25.02.2010 passed by learned Sub Judge, Manjeri in E.P.No.64 of 2009 in O.S.No.114 of 2008 is under challenge in this Writ Petition at the instance of petitioner/judgment debtor. Respondent launched execution of the decree for a sum of Rs.3,55,224/- with future interest and cost. Property of petitioner was attempted to be brought up for sale. Notice under Rule 66 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure was served on petitioner and he preferred objection regarding valuation of that property. At the instance of petitioner an Advocate Commissioner inspected the property and valued the property and building. Advocate Commissioner reported that property would fetch Rs.19,89,800/-. Executing court as per impugned order observed that partial sale of the property is not feasible as reported by Advocate Commissioner and ordered that the property be proclaimed and sold by incorporating the estimate of both parties. Though learned counsel for petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.02.2010 I do not find reason to interfere with that order since request for partial sale of property was considered by learned Munsiff and it is observed in the impugned order that it is not feasible and the estimate given by petitioner also is to be incorporated in the sale notice. 2. At this stage learned counsel has stated that as per order of this Court on 22.03.2010 a sum of Rs.50,000/- has already been deposited in the executing court and that petitioner may be given some time to pay the balance WP(C) No.8691/2010 2 amount in installments. Learned counsel states about difficulties of the petitioner in raising the entire amount in lump and the injury that would be caused to him if the entire property is sold. I have heard learned counsel for respondent also in this regard. Having regard to the facts and circumstances I am inclined to give petitioner time to pay the balance amount in installments. Resultantly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. But petitioner is permitted to pay the amount due under the decree in six equal monthly installments beginning from 01.07.2010 onwards. The amount shall be deposited in the executing court on or before 05th of the month. In case of default in payment of any two installments or the entire balance amount due is not paid within the time aforesaid respondent can proceed with execution pursuant to the order dated 25.02.2010. If the property has already been proclaimed for sale petitioner shall file affidavit in the executing court within three weeks from this day waiving fresh proclamation for sale. Amount if any deposited in the executing court shall be withdrawn by respondent. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks