KARUNAKARAN Vs. KESAVAN NADAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Judgment debtor in E.P. No.459 of 2005 in O.S. No.1017 of 1994 of the court of learned Additional Sub Judge-II, Thiruvananthapuram is the petitioner before me challenging Ext.P5, order. It is contended by learned counsel that as per Ext.P2, proclamation schedule extent of property proposed to be sold is four Ares and that even as per the valuation statement submitted by the decree holder on 19.03.2009 value of the property is stated as Rs.61,765/- per Are but for the sum of Rs.1,96,000/- due from the petitioner four Ares of land belonging to the petitioner is proposed to be sold. It is also pointed out by learned counsel that by Ext.P3, objection petitioner has pointed out that respondent-decree holder was bound to comply with Rule 330 of the Civil Rules of Practice (for short, "the Rules") but that has not been complied. Still by Ext.P5, order learned Sub Judge has ordered to proclaim and sell the property on 02.11.2010.

(2.) So far as the valuation of property is concerned it is not disputed that petitioner did not adduce evidence to show that property would fetch any higher price than the upset price fixed as per Ext.P2, i.e., Rs.2,25,000/-.

(3.) So far as the contention that Rule 330 of the Rules is not complied I direct the executing court that the objection if any raised before that court shall be considered before property is sold. In other respects I do not find reason to interfere with the impugned order. Original Petition is disposed of directing the executing court to consider and pass appropriate orders on the objection if any raised by the petitioner before that court with regard to non- compliance, if any with Rule 330 of the Rules before property is sold.