High Court Kerala High Court

K.Sasidharan vs Komby Abdul Nazar on 4 July, 2007

Kerala High Court
K.Sasidharan vs Komby Abdul Nazar on 4 July, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 14183 of 2006(L)


1. K.SASIDHARAN, S/O. KRISHNAN NAIR,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. M.V.RADHA, W/O. SASIDHARAN,

                        Vs



1. KOMBY ABDUL NAZAR, S/O. MOOSSA HAJI,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.KRISHNA PRASAD. S

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.14183 OF 2006

                  ...........................................................

                        DATED THIS THE 4th JULY, 2007


                                   J U D G M E N T

I am not impressed very much by the grounds of challenge

raised against the decision of the execution court to proclaim the

properties belonging to the petitioners for sale. In fact, this Court also

thought at the time of admitting the Writ Petition that what the

petitioners require is time for paying off the decree-debt and

accordingly imposed a condition that a sum of Rs.15,000/- shall be

paid within three months from 31.5.2006. The learned counsel for the

petitioners claims that the above amount has been paid within the time

stipulated by this Court and there is no opposition by the learned

counsel for the respondent to this submission. According to the

counsel for the petitioners, payments subsequent to that also have

been made. The balance, counsel submits, will not be much and he

requests that the respondent be directed to file a balance statement.

The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the objective of

the petitioners is only to protract recovery of the decree-debt further

since there is no scope at all for disputing the correctness of the claims

in the E.P.

2. Whatever that be, I am inclined to dispose of this Writ

WP(C)N0.14183/06

-2-

Petition issuing the following directions:-

The order of stay presently passed will continue for another five

months from today. It is open to the petitioners to pay what according

to them is the correct balance within three months from today. While

making such payment, the petitioners will file a statement showing the

details of the payments so far made with copy to the respondent. The

court below will hear both sides on the correctness of the statement

filed by the petitioners and take a decision as to what exactly is the

balance due and will issue peremptory orders directing payment of the

said balance. At any rate, the whole exercise shall be completed

within the time frame of five months stipulated above and under no

circumstances the order of stay will continue beyond that period.

The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. No costs.

(PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)

tgl

WP(C)N0.14183/06

-3-

WP(C)N0.14183/06

-4-