IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP.No. 239 of 2010(D)
1. A.GOPALAKRISHNAN, AGED 52 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. N.SIVARAMAN, AGED 71 YEARS,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.KAPPILLIL ANILKUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :28/05/2010
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ.
---------------------------------------
R.P.No.239 of 2010
in W.P.(C).NO.9488 of 2008
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of May, 2010
O R D E R
Review petitioner is the respondent in the
writ petition, which was disposed by judgment dated
29.1.2010. The writ petition was filed by the decree
holder in a suit for money challenging the order of the
execution court fixing the upset price and settling the
proclamation over the attached property of the judgment
debtor. The writ petition was disposed, after hearing
both sides, directing the execution court to complete the
execution proceedings within the time limit fixed.
Though no tenable ground was seen made in the
memorandum of review petition to sustain the prayer for
review of the judgment rendered in the writ petition,
considering the persuasive submissions made by the
learned counsel for the review petitioner seeking
indulgence of this court for a further opportunity to
discharge the entire decree debt by payment within a
time limit agreed upon and on the undertaking given by
the review petitioner, as borne out by the affidavit sworn
to by him dated 10.3.2010, that he will deposit Rs.2
R.P.No.239 of 2010
in W.P.(C).NO.9488 of 2008
:: 2 ::
lakhs before the court below on 15.3.2010 and the
entire balance amount under the decree to the decree
holder within two months from 10.3.2010. I have passed
an order on 15.3.2010 directing the court below to defer
the confirmation of the sale, which had already taken
place, for a period of three months from the date of the
order. After obtaining such favourable orders from this
court in the review petition, review petitioner has now
filed I.A.No.220/10 with some documents stating that he
has entered into an agreement of sale for sale of a
portion of the property covered by the sale and lifting of
the attachment ordered over that property is essential
for collecting the sale price, to discharge the liability
due to the decree holder. The attachment has already
culminated in sale of the property and what now remains
is only confirmation, which has been deferred on the
undertaking given by the judgment debtor that he would
discharge the entire liability due to the decree holder
within three months from 15.3.2010, as ordered by this
R.P.No.239 of 2010
in W.P.(C).NO.9488 of 2008
:: 3 ::
court. He has deposited Rs.2 lakhs within the time limit
fixed by this court under the above order in no way
relieves him from fulfilling and honouring the
undertaking made for deferring the confirmation of the
sale over the property. I find no merit in
I.A.No.220/2010 seeking a direction to the court below
to lift the attachment of the property which had already
been proceeded with in sale by the execution court.
I.A.No.220/2010 is only to be dismissed.
Though there is a direction in the order dated
15.3.2010 for posting the review petition after three
months, taking note of the stand taken by the review
petitioner/judgment debtor tantamounting to the
undertaking given before this court that he would
discharge the liability within a period of three months, I
find no further consideration of the review petition is
called for. In case the revision petitioner fails to
discharge the decree debt within the time limit, as
undertaken by him and given expression to in the order
R.P.No.239 of 2010
in W.P.(C).NO.9488 of 2008
:: 4 ::
dated 15.3.2010 of this court, the court below shall take
appropriate steps for confirmation of the sale, in
accordance with law.
Review petition is dismissed, subject to the
above directions/observations.
I.A.No.220/2010
Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN)
JUDGE
sk/
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge.