Unni Thangal vs M/S.Goodwin Hire Purchase Chits And on 6 July, 2010

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Unni Thangal vs M/S.Goodwin Hire Purchase Chits And on 6 July, 2010

Bench: Thomas P.Joseph

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 28101 of 2009(O)


1. UNNI THANGAL, S/O.UNNITHANGAL,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. M/S.GOODWIN HIRE PURCHASE CHITS AND
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.N.SUBRAMANIAM

                For Respondent  :SRI.P.SANTHOSH  (PODUVAL)

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH

 Dated :06/07/2010

 O R D E R
                             THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
                            --------------------------------------
                             W.P.(C) No.28101 of 2009
                            --------------------------------------
                       Dated this the 6th day of July, 2010.

                                      JUDGMENT

Ext.P2, sale proclamation is under challenge in this Writ Petition at the instance of judgment debtor in E.P.No.47 of 2007 in O.S.No.878 of 2002 of the court of learned Additional Sub Judge-II, Thrissur. Challenge is to the upset price fixed in Ext.P2. According to the petitioner 54 cents referred to in Ex.P2 and attempted to be sold is valued at more than Rs.30 lakhs but the upset price fixed in Ext.P2 is only Rs.1,66,819/-. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that the upset price fixed is in violation of Rule 64 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, "the Code"). Learned counsel for respondent/decree holder contends that there is nothing on record to show that value of property is as claimed by petitioner. Apart from raising a contention that property referred to in Ext.P2 is valued at about Rs.30 lakhs petitioner has not taken out a commission to assess value of property nor any other evidence is produced. As such I do not consider it necessary to interfere with Ext.P2.

2. At this stage learned counsel for petitioner requested that petitioner may be granted some time to pay the balance amount due under the decree. It is stated that petitioner is prepared to pay the balance amount due. It is also stated that pursuant to the order passed by this Court Rs.1,05,000/- has been deposited by the petitioner in the executing court. I have heard learned counsel WP(C) No.28101/2009 2 for respondent also in this regard. Learned counsel is agreeable to petitioner being given a reasonable time to pay off the amount due under the decree. In the circumstances stated I am inclined to permit petitioner to pay the balance amount due under the decree in four equal monthly installments.

Resultantly this Writ Petition is disposed of in the following lines:

i. Petitioner is permitted to pay the balance amount due under the decree in four equal monthly installments beginning from 02.08.2010 onwards.

ii. In case the amount due is not paid within the time granted or, there is default in payment of any two installments it is open to the respondent to proceed with execution of decree pursuant to Ext.P2.

iii. The amount if any deposited by petitioner in the executing court can be withdrawn by respondent.

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge.

cks

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court