Umadevi vs Hill Valley Corporation

Harun-Ul-Rashid, J.—The Petitioner is the judgment debtor in E.P. No. 1893/2007 in O.S. No. 1353/2002 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Thrissur. The decree holder filed the execution petition seeking to realise an amount of Rs. 77,642/- by sale of 25 cents of property situated in survey No. 748/1 of Kilimanoor Village belonging to the Petitioner. Ext.P1 is the copy of the execution petition. Ext.P2 is the objection submitted by the Petitioner dated 1.7.2008. Ext.P5 is the copy of the sale proclamation dated 16.9.2010. The Petitioner challenges Ext.P5 proclamation stating that a part of the property is sufficient for realisation of the decree debt, that the learned Munsiff improperly, illegally arbitrarily proceeded to realise the decree debt by sale of the entire property which is an unjustified act, according to the Petitioner. It is submitted that only such of the property required for realisation of the decree debt alone need be sold and the proceedings initiated by the learned Munsiff to sell the entire property is illegal and unauthorised.

This Court passed an interim order staying the sale and other proceedings in the property by order dated 11.11.2010 at the time of admission on the condition of the Petitioner depositing a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards the decree debt on or before the time fixed for sale. The Petitioner did not deposit the amount ordered to be deposited. He deposited only Rs. 15,000/- instead of Rs. 50,000/-. The reason stated in the I.A is that his counsel mistakenly understood the amount ordered to be deposited as Rs. 15,000/- instead of Rs. 50,000/-. Therefore, the I.A. No. 15986/2010 was filed seeking enlargement of time for complying with the order dated 11.11.2010. This Court accepted the reason and by order dated 18.11.2010 granted three weeks'' time for deposit of balance Rs. 35,000/-. The sale was adjourned to a day after three weeks.

The learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that the order passed in I.A. No. 15893/2010 was also not complied with. The case was again adjourned to 8.12.2010, 14.2.2011, 23.2.2011 and to today. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner is not in a position to report as to whether the balance amount has been deposited or not.

This Court entertained the petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India believing the words of the Petitioner that he will deposit Rs. 50,000/- so that the decree holder may enjoy at least part of the decree. After obtaining favourable orders from this Court, the Petitioner did not care to comply with the orders passed by this Court. In this circumstances, this Court is not in a position to grant any more relief to the Petitioner.

The writ petition is dismissed.