M. N. CHANDRAN Vs. K. M. MUHAMMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the judgment-debtor in E.P.60/2015 in O.S.115/1999 on the file of Sub Court, Perumbavoor. This O.P has been filed aggrieved by the order dtd. 20/7/2016 of the Sub Judge ordering the sale of the property described in the draft sale proclamation.

(2.) According to the petitioner, a specific contention that the petitioner is an agriculturist entitled for benefit under Sec.60(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred as 'the Code') has been specifically raised in the objection but it has not been considered properly by the Execution Court. It is also his contention that the property would fetch value of Rs.5.00 Lakhs per cent, but without any basis the Court accepted the valuation shown in the sale proclamation filed by the decree holder. A part of the property would have been sufficient to satisfy the decree but the entire property was proclaimed to be sold. The procedures prescribed under Rule 330 of the Civil Rules of Practice also not complied since no encumbrance certificate has been produced by the respondent/decree holder. There is a two storied concrete building in the scheduled property and the value of it has not been considered while accepting the value shown in the proclamation. In short, according to the learned counsel, the impugned order ordering proclamation and sale of the property has to be set aside.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondent/decree holder, on the other hand, would contend that all the objections raised by the petitioner has been answered by the learned Sub Judge and no evidence has been adduced by the petitioner to prove any of the contentions. It is also his contention that in spite of passing a decree for realization of money, no payment has been made and from 2016 onwards the matter is pending without making any payment and hence according to him, there is no merit in the original petition.