IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 27928 of 2008(Y)
1. K.VELAYUDHAN, S/O KUNCHAN, AGED 67,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, KANJIKODE BRANCH,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :14/12/2009
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
----------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No. 27928 OF 2008
--------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of December 2009
----------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is the second judgment debtor in
E.P No.23 of 2007 in O.S No.426 of 2000 on the file of Sub
Court, Palakkad. Decree executed is one passed in a suit for
money by sale of a mortgage property. Negativing the
objections raised by the judgment debtors, the execution
court has settled proclamation for sale of the mortgage
property fixing an upset price of Rs.8,47,472/- to realise the
decree debt. Ext.P2 is the copy of the sale proclamation.
Correctness of Ext.P2 is challenged in the writ petition
invoking the visitorial jurisdiction vested with this court
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
It is submitted that at the time of admitting this writ petition,
an interim stay was granted directing the petitioner/second
judgment debtor to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- towards the
decree debt due. Pursuant to that direction, a sum of
Rs.1,50,000/- had been deposited by the petitioner and that
W.P.(C).No. 27928 OF 2008 Page numbers
sum was withdrawn by the decree holder. According to the
counsel for the petitioner, the amount calculated towards
the liability arising from the decree debt to settle the
proclamation is incorrect, and, over ‘B’ schedule property,
some others also have right, but those objections were not
considered by the execution court while passing orders for
settling the proclamation for sale is the grievance espoused
in the writ petition. I do not find any merit in the objections
canvassed. Not even a copy of the objections, if any, raised
pursuant to receiving of the notice under Order 21 Rule 66
(2)(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure has been produced with
the writ petition. There is nothing on record to show that
any tenable objection was canvassed to resist the settling of
proclamation for sale and its publication. No interference
with the order settling the proclamation for sale in the
circumstance emerge for consideration. Writ petition lacks
merit, and it is closed.
Sd/-
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,
JUDGE
//TRUE COPY//
vdv P.A TO JUDGE