High Court Kerala High Court

Muhammed vs Silaire Investments And Hire … on 28 November, 2008

Kerala High Court
Muhammed vs Silaire Investments And Hire … on 28 November, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 35182 of 2008(L)


1. MUHAMMED, S/O.UMARAKOTTIL ABDUL RAHIMAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SILAIRE INVESTMENTS AND HIRE PURCHASES
                       ...       Respondent

2. SILAIRE INVESTMENTS AND HIRE PURCHASES

                For Petitioner  :SRI.D.ANIL KUMAR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN

 Dated :28/11/2008

 O R D E R
               K.P. Balachandran, J.
            --------------------------
             W.P.(C)No.35182 of 2008 L
            --------------------------

                     JUDGMENT

Petitioner is the judgment debtor in O.S.No.

950/00 on the file of the Sub Court, Thrissur.

Respondents/decree holders filed E.P.No.23/08 in

the court below to have the money decree obtained

by them executed and amounts recovered by sale of

the property belonging to the judgment debtor,

which was charged under the decree.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the

execution court has not at all adopted the

procedures to be followed in such cases and has

casually settled the proclamation as submitted by

the decree holders and ordered the property to be

proclaimed for sale vide order dated 3.10.2008 and

posted the case for sale, whereas, on 3.10.2008, an

objection has been filed by the petitioner to Rule

66 notice pointing out that the amount of

Rs.50,000/- shown as the value of the property is

very meagre and that the property is really worth

WPC 35182/08 2

Rupees Eight lakhs.

3. Petitioner has produced the endorsements

made by the court below on E.P.No.23/08, which

shows that the execution court has ordered Rule 22

notice to the judgment debtor and posted the case

to 24.3.2008 and thereafter to 5.6.2008. But, on

that day, there was no sitting and the case was

adjourned to 10.7.2008. On 10.7.2008, the judgment

debtor prayed for time to file counter and the case

was adjourned to 15.8.2008, on which day also,

there was no sitting and the case was adjourned to

15.9.2008. The endorsement in the order sheet on

15.9.2008 is “settlement of proclamation, steps on

3.10.2008”. The endorsement on 3.10.2008 is “for

proclamation on 22.10.2008” and the endorsement on

22.10.2008 is “for sale, steps – 2.12.2008”. From

the order passed on 15.9.2008, it is not clear as

to whether proclamation was settled on that day and

for what purpose was the EP adjourned to 3.10.2008.

Filing of objection by the judgment debtor on

WPC 35182/08 3

3.10.2008 is not made mention of. Unless settlement

of proclamation is had, the property cannot be

proclaimed for sale. It does not appear from the

order of the execution court as to whether the

court has accepted the upset price shown in the

draft proclamation or has applied its mind to the

value of the property in the proclamation schedule.

4. Further, when Rule 22 notice is issued to

the judgment debtor, what one expects is for the

judgment debtor to file objection to the

executability of the decree and not objection to

the draft proclamation. Immediately after ordering

Rule 22 notice and the judgment debtor entering

appearance pursuant thereto, without any further

notice under Rule 66, the court has passed on to

the stage of settlement of proclamation, without an

order being passed allowing the decree holders to

execute the decree, when only the stage of Rule 22

notice will be over. On the whole, the entire

steps adopted by the execution court to bring the

WPC 35182/08 4

property to sale on the application of the decree

holders is not at all in conformity with the

provisions under Order XXI CPC.

5. In the result, even without notice to the

respondents/decree holders, I set aside the entire

proceedings adopted by the execution court on

Exhibit P2 execution application ever after

15.8.2008 and direct the court below to proceed

afresh from that stage. Petitioner is directed to

produce a copy of this judgment in the court below

forthwith with notice to the respondents/decree

holders, as this writ petition is being disposed of

without notice to them. The sale posted to

2.12.2008 is stopped.

The writ petition is disposed of with the above

directions. Issue copy of this judgment to the

counsel for the petitioner urgently.

28th November, 2008 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge)
tkv