T CHELLADURA Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT appears through counsel. Heard both sides.

(2.) JUDGMENT debtors in E.P. No.85 of 2007 in O.S. No.12 of 2004 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Kattappana are the petitioners before me. Petitioners suffered a decree for payment of money and the amount due as shown in the execution petition is Rs.2,47,485/- with future interest and costs. Property of petitioners was required to be sold by the respondent-decree holder for recovery of the amount due. Petitioners did not file any objection on time. On 14.09.2010 petitioners filed Ext.P3, objection with Ext.P4, application to receive the same stating that they were not in station during the relevant time. Executing court dismissed the application as per Ext.P5, order and ordered proclamation and sale of one acre out of 1.95 acres required to be sold by the respondent. Learned counsel for petitioners contends that there are two buildings in the said one acre where petitioners are residing and its sale would prejudicially affect petitioners. Petitioners contend that 30 cents excluding the buildings is sufficient to realise the decree debt. Petitioners have made a further prayer for granting installment facility to pay off the amount. Learned counsel for respondent contends that no objection was preferred to the draft proclamation in spite of granting sufficient time. The property is scheduled to be sold on 30.10.2010. Having regard to the circumstances stated I consider it just and proper that petitioners are granted opportunity to urge their contention before the learned Sub Judge. Petitioners have filed their objection along with application to receive the same but learned Sub Judge dismissed the application. Hence I am inclined to set aside Ext.P5, order. Petitioners have to deposit a portion of the amount due under the decree. Resultantly, this Original Petition is disposed of in the following lines: