J.Thomas vs The Federal Bank Ltd By Its … on 4 September, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 26686 of 2008(B)


1. J.THOMAS, S/O.JOSEPH, AGED ABOUT 64 YRS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE FEDERAL BANK LTD BY ITS VALLITHODE
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.JIJI THOMAS PAMBACKAL

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :04/09/2008

 O R D E R
                 M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
                    ...........................................
                  WP(C).No. 26686                 OF 2008
                   ............................................
     DATED THIS THE            4th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2008

                               JUDGMENT

Petitioner is the judgment debtor and first respondent, the

decree holder. For realisation of the amount due under the

decree in O.S.251 of 2004 on the file of Sub Court, Thalassery,

respondent filed E.P.228 of 2007. In that execution proceedings,

the mortgaged property was directed to be sold. When sale was

ordered, petitioner filed WP(C) 5599 of 2008 challenging the

order. This court under Ext.P2 judgment dated 18.2.2008,

granted an opportunity to petitioner to file an additional

objection and directed the executing court to fix the upset price

or show the valuation estimated by judgment debtor also in the

sale proclamation as provided under second proviso to sub-rule 2

of Rule 66 of Order XXI of Code of Civil procedure. When the

executing court directed further proclamation and sale as

directed by this court, this petition is filed under Article 227 of

Constitution of India challenging Ext.P4, the copy of the paper

containing the sale proclamation published as directed by the

executing court. If the grievance of the petitioner is that

additional objection filed by him was not considered, remedy of

WP(C) 26686/2008 2

petitioner was to challenge the order overruling the objections

and directing proclamation and sale. Writ petition challenging

the publication of the sale proclamation in the newspaper is not

maintainable. Petitioner has no case that his additional objection

was not considered. What is claimed by petitioner is that he is

entitled to the benefit of Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt

Relief Scheme, 2008. But that scheme is not made available to a

judgment debtor against whom a decree has already been passed

by the court. In such circumstances, petition is dismissed.

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE

lgk/-