IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 5095 of 2007(F)
1. KRISHNANKUTTY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. K.R. SURESH,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN
Dated :14/02/2007
O R D E R
K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C)NO.5095 OF 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 14th day of February 2007
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the judgment debtor in O.S.278/1998 on the
file of the Munsiff Court, Chengannur and the respondent is the
decree holder. According to the petitioner, he preferred an appeal
from the decree but that stands dismissed as the appeal was time
barred. Thereafter he filed CRP No.174/04 before this court which
was disposed of vide Ext.P1 order directing the petitioner to pay
an amount of Rs.25,000/- within one month from 28.6.2005 and to
pay the balance amount in ten monthly instalments. The order
further provided that in case of default the benefit of instalment
payment will not be available to the judgment debtor and that if
the directions are complied with the execution petition shall stand
stayed and on the contrary the execution petition shall be revived
and the decree holder shall proceed against judgment debtor.
2. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner happened to commit default and consequently
proceedings for sale of immovable property belonging to him are
in progress. Though it is submitted that the value of the property
notified vide Ext.P3 proclamation is more than the amount
W.P.(C)NO.5095 OF 2007
2
specified in the said proclamation he does not say as to what the
value of the property will be according to him. The court below
shall verify as to whether any objection has been filed to Rule 66
notice by the petitioner and if any objection is so filed shall verify
as to whether he has a case that property is worth so much
according to him. If he has specified any amount as being the
value of the property that is brought to sale which is more than the
upset price shown by the decree holder in the Ext.P1 proclamation
schedule, the court below shall cause fresh proclamation to be
filed by the decree holder showing therein also the value of the
property as suggested by the petitioner specifying it as the value
of the property according to the judgment debtor and sale shall be
effected only after proclaiming the property afresh showing that
such value also. All the same, if the petitioner has not so
contended in the objection to Rule 66 notice further proceedings
in execution shall proceed on the proclamation now settled.
This writ petition is disposed of with the above direction.
K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE
jes