High Court Kerala High Court

A.P.Thomas vs State Bank Of India on 17 August, 2007

Kerala High Court
A.P.Thomas vs State Bank Of India on 17 August, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 24255 of 2006(K)


1. A.P.THOMAS, AGED 51 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE BANK OF INDIA,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR

                For Respondent  :SRI.GEORGE THOMAS(MEVADA), SC, SBI

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

 Dated :17/08/2007

 O R D E R
                         PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.
                           -------------------------------
                        W.P.(C) No. 24255 OF 2006
                         -----------------------------------
                  Dated this the 17th day of August, 2007

                                  JUDGMENT

The order of the Execution court directing sale of the decree

schedule property in a mortgage decree is under challenge in this Writ

Petition under Article 227 filed by the petitioner, judgment debtor. The

ground which is prominently raised in the objection, Ext.P1, filed under

Rule 66 of Order XXI is that the value of the property is such that it is not

necessary to proclaim and sell the whole property but it will be sufficient

if a portion of the property is proclaimed and sold. Learned counsel cited

decisions and submitted that the learned Subordinate Judge should be

directed to pass fresh orders considering the ratio of the decisions.

2. Sri.George Thomas(Mevada), counsel for the 1st respondent

Bank submitted that even according to the petitioner the market value is

Rs.80,000/- per cent and the extent of the property being only 6 cents,

the maximum price which will be realised by selling even the whole

property is only Rs.4,00,000/-. The Decree debt is around

Rs.4,00,000/-. Sri.George Thomas also submitted that the house is

situated towards the middle of the property and it will be practically

difficult to separate a portion of the property and sell the same.

Having considered the rival submissions made at the Bar, I am of

WPC No. 24255 of 2006
2

the view that it is for the petitioner to identify a purchaser who will be

prepared to buy any portion of his property for a price equal to the

amount necessary for discharging the decree debt in full. Under these

circumstances, by virtually upholding the grounds raised in the Writ

Petition, I dispose of the Writ Petition itself directing that the order of

stay presently passed will continue for a period of 4 more months from

today. It is open to the petitioner to identify a purchaser who is willing

to buy any portion of the property in the meanwhile, so that the

prospective purchaser will pay the entire balance decree debt to the

Bank. Once such a purchaser is identified, the petitioner will take him to

the Bank and the Bank will render all necessary assistance so as to

facilitate sale of the property and the petitioner will also ensure that the

purchaser pays the amounts necessary for paying off the debt directly to

the Bank. At any rate, the order of stay presently passed will not

continue after four months from today.

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE
btt

WPC No. 24255 of 2006
3