High Court Kerala High Court

Vennila vs Alexander on 24 September, 2010

Kerala High Court
Vennila vs Alexander on 24 September, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP(C).No. 52 of 2010(O)



1. VENNILA
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. ALEXANDER
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.BIJU M.JOHN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH

 Dated :24/09/2010

 O R D E R
                   THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
            ====================================
                      O.P(C) No.52 of 2010
            ====================================
         Dated this the 24th   day of September,    2010


                         J U D G M E N T

Petitioner is the judgment debtor in E.P. No.290 of 2007 in

O.S. No.256 of 1996 of the court of learned Sub Judge-II, North

Paravur. Petitioner states that respondents filed E.P. No.349 of

2004 which was dismissed on 24.11.2006. In the meantime

certain payments were made to the respondents. Then

respondents filed E.P. No.290 of 2007. Learned counsel states that

the said execution petition was closed on 30.07.2009 and later

reopened without notice to the petitioner. Learned counsel states

that certain payments were also made to the respondent in

discharge of the decree debt but without considering the same and

without issuing notice property of petitioner is scheduled to be sold

on 28.09.2010. Hence petitioner requests in this petition to direct

learned Sub Judge to fix the balance amount payable to the

respondents as per the decree, set aside the sale notice and

permit petitioner to pay the balance decree amount if any in

installments.

2. Question whether petitioner has paid any amount to

O.P(C) No.52 of 2010
-: 2 :-

the respondents and if so what is the balance amount due are

matters which the executing court has to decide. It is not clear

whether petitioner has been set ex parte in the execution petition.

Petitioner can raise all her objections in the executing court

including liability outstanding to be discharged. If the sale is

scheduled to be held on 28.09.2010 it is open to the petitioner to

request the executing court to adjourn the sale on appropriate

terms including that petitioner filed affidavit in the executing

court waiving fresh proclamation for such sale. I direct the

learned Sub Judge to consider the objection if preferred by the

petitioner and pass appropriate orders expeditiously, as provided

under law.

With the above observation Original Petition is closed.

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.

vsv