KATTALATH VISRUTHA KUMAR Vs. A. RADHAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment debtor in OS.No.110/2002 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Palakkad, has come up before this Court invoking powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the sale of immovable property conducted on 19/07/08 and the consequential confirmation of sale on 19/09/08 in E.P No.107/2007.

(2.) THE respondent decree holder filed the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.12,33,830.00 with interest, which was decreed with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of decree till realisation. The decree was placed on board for execution and ultimately, proceedings ended in confirmation of sale and consequential delivery.

(3.) THE main grivance voiced against the impugned order is that the petitioner was away in Gulf and he could not receive Order XXII Rule 66 notice issued by the court. The learned counsel for the respondent produced a certified copy of the court proceedings which would reveal that Order XXII Rule 66 notice has been served by substituted service to the petitioner. The fact that the petitioner was away in Gulf was not proved and so many proceedings were against him in that court; so submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent.