High Court Kerala High Court

C.K.Lakshmi vs Suvarna Kuries And Loans (P) Ltd on 4 July, 2007

Kerala High Court
C.K.Lakshmi vs Suvarna Kuries And Loans (P) Ltd on 4 July, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 29125 of 2005(P)


1. C.K.LAKSHMI, AGED 44,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SUVARNA KURIES AND LOANS (P) LTD.,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)

                For Respondent  :SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

 Dated :04/07/2007

 O R D E R
                         PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.
                           -------------------------------
                       W.P.(C) No. 29125 OF 2005
                         -----------------------------------
                    Dated this the 4th day of July, 2007

                                  JUDGMENT

The judgment debtor whose properties have been brought to sale

by the respondent decree holder in execution of a money decree has

filed this Writ Petition under Article 227 complaining that Ext.P2

objections filed by him have not been considered by the execution court.

He also urges through the Writ Petition that she is a traditional

pappadam maker and therefore her house cannot be attached and sold

since she is entitled to get the benefit granted under Section 60 (1) (c) of

CPC.

2. Heard Sri.Ravi Pariyarath, counsel for the petitioner and

Sri.Sumod counsel for the 4th respondent. As rightly submitted by

Mr.Sumod it is not contended in Ext.P2 at all, that the petitioner is

entitled to the benefit of Section 60 (1) (c) of the CPC, instead the

contention is only that the properties which are now attached and sought

to be sold no longer remain the property of the petitioner. That

contention, I agree with Mr.Sumod is a contention to be raised by the

present owners of the property through proper claim petition under Rule

58 of Order XXI. Obviously, the petitioner is in need of time for paying

decree debt. Noticing this fact, this court while admitting this Writ

WPC No. 29125 of 2005
2

Petition granted stay on condition that the petitioner shall pay Rs.5,000/-

within one month from 17.10.05. Mr.Ravi submits that the above

condition was promptly complied with by the petitioner. I accept the

above submission and dispose of the Writ Petition issuing the following

directions:

The order of stay will continue until the court passes an order on a

prospective application to be submitted by the petitioner for recording

full satisfaction of the decree subject to the following conditions. The

petitioner pays every month commencing from 1st of August 2001 at the

rate of Rs.4,000/- towards the decree debt till the entire decree debt is

discharged. When she feels that the entire decree debt is discharged, it

is open to her to file application for recording full satisfaction. The

petitioner will forfeit the benefit of this judgment if she defaults payment

of any two instalments.

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE
btt

WPC No. 29125 of 2005
3