High Court Kerala High Court

Sheeba vs Madhusoodhanan Nair on 21 August, 2008

Kerala High Court
Sheeba vs Madhusoodhanan Nair on 21 August, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 25236 of 2008(D)



1. SHEEBA
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. MADHUSOODHANAN NAIR
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :21/08/2008

 O R D E R
                  M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

                    -------------------------------

                    W.P.(C) No.25236 of 2008

                    -------------------------------

                 Dated this the 21st August, 2008.

                          J U D G M E N T

This petition is filed by the wife of judgment debtor

directing Sub Court, Neyyattinkara, to set aside Ext.P4 sale

proclamation and to consider Exts.P5 and P6 petitions and pass

orders thereafter.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

was heard.

3. Petitioner had earlier filed W.P.(C) No.21687 of

2007 challenging the earlier proclamation issued by the executing

court. Under Ext.P2 judgment, this Court directed the executing

court to grant one month’s time to enable petitioner to have a

breathing time, as it was contended that her husband, judgment

debtor, has abandoned her. That judgment was passed on

13.7.2007. If the petitioner wants to avoid the sale, she has

sufficient time to pay off the debt.

W.P.(C) No.25236 of 2008

2

3. The argument of the learned counsel for the

petitioner is that property is worth more than Rs.11 lakhs, but

the upset price earlier fixed was Rs.4 lakhs, which was

subsequently reduced to Rs.1,70,000/=, and petitioner is the

mother of the minor children and as judgment debtor is not

there, the proclamation for sale is to be set aside. Learned

counsel also argued that petitioner has filed an application under

Rule 58 of Order XXI of Code of Civil Procedure, and petitions

are pending and before disposing the petitions, the property may

not be sold.

On hearing the learned counsel, I do not find any

illegality or irregularity in the sale proclamation warranting

interference. If petitioner has a charge in the property as

claimed by her, and therefore, has interest in the property,

petitioner has a remedy to apply under Rule 89 of Rule 90 of

Code of Civil Procedure, once sale is effected. Petition is

dismissed.

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE

nj.