IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 26TH MAGHA 1929 CRP.No. 135 of 2008() --------------------- (AGAINST THE ORDER INE.P.216/04 IN O.P.17/88 OF ADDL.SUB COURT, THALASSERRY) REVN. PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS-JUDGMENT DEBTORS/ RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPT.BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHUDI BHAVAN,PATTOM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASST. ENGINEER BALIAPATTANAM, NOW DESIGNATED AS ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PAPPINISSERRY, BALIAPATTANAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/DECREE HOLDER: --------------------------------------------------------- THE WESTERN INDIAN COTTON INDIA LTD PAPPINISSERRY, REPT. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. NO. 135 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 15th day of February, 2008. O R D E R This revision petition is preferred against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Thalassery whereby the learned Subordinate Judge has ordered sale of the property on 28.2.2008. The execution petitions had arisen out of an arbitration award and it is contended that there is also another award passed against the decree holder to pay the amount to the Electricity Board. If the amount due form the decree holder to the Electricity Board is adjusted then the balance amount would be less than Rs.4,75,000/- and the Court has not considered that point at all. Similarly, it is submitted that the property proposed to be sold is one acre of land in Kannur which is more specifically described as, It is specifically contended that the value of the property will come to about six crores and the Court has not considered the same but rejected it on the ground that it has not been substantiated. Even applying the common knowledge CRP NO. 135 of 2008 -:2:- principle the land situated in Kannur having an extent of one acre if is available for Rs.10 lakhs then it will be a paradise for the people. The Court should not have lightly considered these matters and rejected the same and in fixing the upset price at Rs.10 lakhs. Even if it is true under Order 21 Rule 72 proviso that the Court is not bound to fix an upset price for the property, there is a paramount duty of the Court to show the valuation estimated by the decree holder as well as the judgment debtor in the sale proclamation. Nothing is done in this case. Therefore the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge suffers from serious infirmity which requires interference at the hands of this Court. Therefore I set aside the order and direct the Court below to conduct a fresh enquiry with respect to the objections raised by the judgment debtor and pass appropriate orders and then proceed with the sale proceedings in accordance with law. The C.R.P. is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-