High Court Kerala High Court

K.Y. Rasheed vs The Trading Company on 9 June, 2008

Kerala High Court
K.Y. Rasheed vs The Trading Company on 9 June, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 16217 of 2008(E)


1. K.Y. RASHEED,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE TRADING COMPANY,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :09/06/2008

 O R D E R
                     M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

                       -------------------------------

                        W.P.(C) No.16217 of 2008

                       -------------------------------

                      Dated this the 9th June, 2008.

                             J U D G M E N T

Petitioner is the judgment debtor in O.S.No.35/2001, on

the file of the Sub Court, Alappuzha. As per the decree, respondent is

entitled to Rs.5,85,219/= with interest at the rate of 6% per annum

on the principal amount of Rs.3,25,000/=. This petition is filed under

Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging Ext.P4 order, where

under petitioner sought a direction to the Executing Court to exclude

the immovable properties from sale and only to proceed against the

movable properties scheduled in the petition. The Executing Court

dismissed the petition under Ext.P4 order, dated 16.1.2008.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was

heard.

3. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and

on going through Ext.P4 order, I do not find any illegality or

irregularity warranting interference. When there is a charged decree,

judgment debtor is not entitled to contend that decree holder is not

W.P.(C) No.16217/2008

2

entitled to proceed against the charged properties and also has no

right to restrict the sale to movable properties, even if the case is that

by sale of the movables, the decree debt could be realised. Therefore,

Ext.P4 order is legal.

The learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted

that balance decree debt due to the respondent is less than Rupees

Two Lakhs and petitioner is making all efforts to make the payment

without any delay, and, therefore, time may be granted to the

petitioner to pay the decree debt. If the petitioner pays substantial

portion of the decree debt and applies to the Executing Court,

Executing Court to grant time to the petitioner to pay the balance

decree debt. Petition is dismissed.

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE

nj.