IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 1667 of 2007(W)
1. M.J. CYRIAC, S/O.LATE OUSEPH,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE BANK OF INDIA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.NARAYANAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :23/01/2007
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) .NO. 1667 OF 2007
------------------------------------------
Dated 23rd January 2007
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is judgment debtor in O.S.82/98
on the file of Sub court, Hosdurg. Respondent is the
decree holder. For realisation of decree debt
mortgaged property was sought to be sold. As per order
in E.A.209/2003 dated 9/1/2004, an extent of 25
cents, where residential building of petitioner is
situated, was excluded. As per order in E.A.200/05
dated 20/9/2006 executing court permitted decree
holder to sell 57 cents of item No.1 of the mortgaged
property excluding 4 feet width way. Under Ext.P4
decree holder sought amendment of the sale paper which
was allowed by the executing court. As per order in
Ext.P4 decree holder produced draft sale papers for
57 cents of property to be sold. When judgment debtor
contended that property cannot be identified, as
identification of the property is not correct, Ext.P3
application was filed to amend draft sale papers. It
was allowed by executing court as per order dated
2
4/12/2006. Property was thereafter directed to be sold.
It is challenged in this petition filed under Article
227 of Constitution of India.
2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner was
heard. Argument of learned counsel appearing for
petitioner is that if property as shown in the amended
sale paper is sold, it will not be the property which
is allowed to be sold as per order of the court, as the
property is not properly described.
3. On going through amended sale paper and
hearing learned counsel appearing for petitioner, I do
not find any reason for such apprehension. Draft sale
paper makes it absolutely clear that property sought to
be sold is the remaining property excluding 25 cents
which was excluded as per order in E.A.209/03. Argument
of learned counsel appearing for petitioner is that
boundaries are not properly shown in Ext.P2. Eastern
property shown is 25 cents in the possession of
petitioner, which has been excluded. So also northern
property is shown as residential house with 25 cents in
the possession of judgment debtor Ext.P2 also establish
that 4 feet path way which has been directed to be
excluded was not included in the property to be sold.
In such circumstances, I do not find any reason to
3
interfere with the direction to sell the property, in
exercise of the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this
court under Article 227 of Constitution of India.
Writ petition is dismissed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE.
uj.