P.T.Sreenivasan vs The Malappuram Service … on 25 July, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 19887 of 2008(P)


1. P.T.SREENIVASAN, S/O.KUNHIKULANGARA,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE MALAPPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON

                For Respondent  :SRI.V.G.ARUN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :25/07/2008

 O R D E R
                  M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
                    ...........................................
                  WP(C).No. 19887                 OF 2008
                    ............................................
         DATED THIS THE             25th       DAY OF JULY, 2008

                               JUDGMENT

Petitioner is the judgment debtor and respondent, the

decree holder in ARC 238 of 2000, which is being executed in

E.P.153 of 2007 on the file of Sub Court, Manjeri. This petition

is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenging

Ext.P2 order passed on 24.5.2008 directing proclamation and

sale. When the petition was admitted on 2.7.2008, an order of

interim stay for three weeks was granted. Respondent appeared

and filed a counter affidavit stating that petitioner had earlier

filed WP(C) 30584 of 2006, which was disposed by this court

under Ext.R1(a) judgment granting time to petitioner to pay the

decree debt and thereafter he again filed WP(C) 7398 of 2008,

whereunder under Ext.R1(b) judgment, this court found that

petitioner is not entitled to get further time and suppressing

these facts, the revision petition was filed.

2. Learned counsel appearing for respondent submitted

that respondent has no objection for the petitioner even

arranging a private sale and paying the entire decree debt but

petitioner is not entitled to postpone the payment on that guise.

WP(C) 19887/2008 2

Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that

petitioner is prepared to deposit Rupees Two lakhs, which he

could collect by executing an agreement for sale and he needs

further time of six months for payment of the balance amount.

In view of Ext.R1(b) judgment, petitioner is not entitled to seek

further time.

3. Writ petition is disposed directing the executing court to

order fresh proclamation of sale. If petitioner pays the entire

decree debt within one month from today, executing court shall

not conduct the sale. It is made clear that if by sale of a portion

of the property, decree debt could be realised, executing court

shall sell only that portion of the property as provided under

Rule 54 of Order XXI of Code of Civil Procedure.

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE

lgk/-