IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH AUGUST 2008 / 5TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 25857 of 2008(C) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER : ---------------- V.A.SURESHKUMAR, S/O.SUBRAMAHNIAN CHETTIAR, AGED 35 YEARS, PALLITHERUVU, VALLANGI VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY RESPONDENTS : ------------------- 1. RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O.SREENIVASAN CHETTIAR, AGED 56 YEARS, MOOVALAKAPUTHUR, MUTHALAMADA VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. RANJITHAMMAL, D/O.SUBRAMANIAN CHETTIAR, AGED 65 YEARS, PALLITHERUVU, VALLANGI VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. VIJAYALAKSHMY, D/O.SUBRAMAHNIAN CHETTIAR, KANTHASWAMY STREET, GANESAPURAM 93, RAMANATHAPURAM P.O, COIMBATORE, TAMIL NADU. 4. PADMAYOTHI, D/O.SUBRAMAHNIAN CHETTIAR, AGED 43 YEARS, 477, VENKITASWAMY NAIDU ROAD, NEW SIDHAPUTHUR.P.O, COIMBATORE TALUK, TAMIL NADU. 5. BABU, S/O. LATE SULOCHANA, AGED 36 YEARS, 477, VENKITASWAMY NAIDU ROAD, NEW SIDHAPUTHUR.P.O, COIMBATORE TALUK, TAMIL NADU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... WP(C).No.25857 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF AUGUST, 2008 JUDGMENT This petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India for a direction to Munsiff, Chittur to conduct fresh auction and to set aside Ext.P5 order passed by learned Munsiff on 28.7.2008. A preliminary decree was passed and FDIA 1412/2004 was filed by plaintiff for passing a final decree in accordance with the preliminary decree. Finding that it is not feasible to divide the property and allot portions of the property to the different sharers, court held that the property could be sold and the sale proceeds could be divided between the sharers. When the court fixed the sale to 28.7.2008, petitioner, the 21st respondent sought an adjournment of the sale. Learned Munsiff, under Ext.P4 order, dismissed the application, holding that the case stood for auction on earlier occasions also and it was adjourned because one party died and sufficient time was granted to petitioner to raise money and the attempt is only to protract the matter. Thereafter, sale was conducted and plaintiff, being the highest bidder, was directed to deposit 1/4th of the auction amount and the balance within one month and the case WP(C) 25857/2008 2 was posted for confirmation of sale to 30.8.2008. Case of petitioner is that learned Munsiff should have granted an opportunity to petitioner to participate in the auction by granting an adjournment and as it is not done, learned Munsiff is to be directed to conduct fresh auction after setting aside Ext.P5 sale proceeds. 2. On hearing the learned counsel, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order and reason to interfere with Ext.P5 order, in exercise of the powers of this court under Article 227 of Constitution of India. Petitioner was not disallowed from participating in the auction. Only his prayer for adjournment of sale was not granted on the ground that sufficient opportunity was earlier granted. In such circumstances, Ext.P5 cannot be interfered on the ground that petitioner was not permitted to participate in the auction. Remedy of the petitioner is to challenge Ext.P5 order by filing a petition before learned Munsiff. If such a petition is filed, learned Munsiff to consider the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Petition is disposed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-