(1.) Respondent Nos. is served but there is no response.
(2.) Petitioner is one of the judgment - debtors in EP No. 354 of 2005 in OS No. 30 of 1998 of the Court of learned Principal Sub Judge, Ernakulam. For the amount due from petitioner and his proprietory concern respondent filed EP No. 354 of 2005. Amount shown in the EP is Rs.2,10,757/- with future interest and costs. According to the petitioner he has paid Rs.80,000/-. Property of petitioner was brought up for sale. Petitioner filed valuation statement valuing the property at Rs.25,00,000/-. As per Ext. P2, order executing Court ordered that 'property identified. Conduct sale on 27/02/2010'. Ext. P3 is the sale notice as per which upset price fixed is Rs.3,00,000/- and amount payable to the respondent is stated as Rs.2,79,826.76. Grievance of the petitioner is that without mentioning the estimated value of property given by petitioner the entire property (1.94 Ares) has been sold which violated O.21 R.66 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'the Code'). In violation of the said provision property was sold and purchased by respondent No. 2 which according to the learned counsel is a nullity. Learned counsel states that petitioner is prepared to pay amount due under the decree. He requests that sale may be set aside and petitioner may be permitted to pay the amount in instalments. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 would contend that there was an order for sale of one cent of property referred to in the proclamation schedule which was challenged by respondent No. 1 in WP (C) No. 6121 of 2008. This Court set aside the order and directed to proclaim and sell the entire property for the amount due under the decree.
(3.) So far as challenge to Exts. P2 and P3 and consequent sale on the ground that entire property need not have been sold is concerned, I am afraid that contention cannot stand in the light of statement made by leaned counsel for respondent No. 1 that in WP (C) No. 6121 of 2008 this Court had permitted sale of the entire property.