SREEJESH V.P Vs. ANNES GEORGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayers in this Original Petition (Civil) filed under the enabling provisions contained in Article 227 of the Constitution of India are as follows:

(2.) Heard Sri.K.Mohanakannan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant/judgment debtor and Sri.R.Surendran, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff/decree holder .

(3.) The petitioner is the defendant/judgment debtor in O.S.No. 166/2012 on the file of the Sub Court, Thalassery. The said suit was filed by the respondent herein and the suit was one for realization of money. The decretal amount is for a sum of Rs. 10,12,093/- as per Ext.P-1 E.P. No.75/2014 in O.S.No. 166/2012. It is stated that the petitioner/ judgment debtor had objected to the draft sale proclamation on the ground that the value of the property is more than Rs. 1 lakhs per cent and the total extent of the property is 87 1/2 cents. That thereupon the execution court had passed order dated 5.11.2016, whereby the respondent herein/decree holder was directed to take steps to identify and suitable and sufficient portion of the property for realization of the decree amount. It is stated that, instead of complying with the directions of the execution court issued as per order 5.11.2016, the respondent/decree holder had filed Ext.P-2 E.A.No. 23/2017 dated 18.1.2017 in the said E.P. praying that the execution court may dispense with identifying suitable and sufficient property to be sold and that proclamation of the sale of the entire item No.1 property may be ordered, etc. Immediately thereupon, the petitioner had filed Ext.P-3 E.A.No. 146/2017 in the said E.P. contending that Ext.P-2 E.A.No. 23/2017 filed by the decree holder is not maintainable and that the maintainability of Ext.P-2 E.A. may be decided. The respondent/decree holder had also filed Ext.P-5 objections to Ext.P-3 E.A.146/2017 filed by the petitioner/J.D. in E.P. and thereby, the respondent has contended that Ext.P-2 E.A. is maintainable, etc. Now by the impugned Ext.P-6 order dated 19.8.2017, the execution court has allowed Ext.P-2 E.A.No.23/2017 filed by the respondent/decree holder and has dismissed Ext.P-3 E.A.No. 146/2017 filed by the petitioner/J.D. Ext.P-7 is the draft sale proclamation fixing upset price as Rs. 6 lakhs and the entire property is put to sale. Ext.P-8 is the objection filed by the petitioner thereto. By Ext.P-9 order, the properties were ordered to be sold in public auction. It is challenging Exts.P-6 and P-9 that the present Original Petition has been filed as stated herein above.