The petitioner suffered a decree and execution proceedings were taken up against him. The petitioner claims benefit under the Agricultural Debt Relief Scheme. He had approached this Court earlier by way of O.P.(C) No.2089/2011 challenging the proceedings in E.P.No.31/2008 and this Court disposed of the original petition as follows: “3. The execution court shall ascertain the exact amount due after making the deletion as above and surge ahead with the execution proceedings for sale. Needless to say that the payments made by the judgment debtor during the pendency of this Original Petition shall also be given credit to. The estimate given by both the decree holder as well as the judgment debtor shall be included in the sale proclamation as provided under the second proviso to Order XXI Rule 66(2)(e) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
4. Ext.P10 order in E.P.No.31/2008 in O.S.No.6/2006 on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge of
O.P.(C) No.2560/2014 2
Kattappana is set aside for this limited purpose. The court below is directed to expedite the execution proceedings under the circumstances”.
2. The petitioner thereafter sought a review of the said judgment by way of R.P.No.1098/2012 and this Court passed an order dated 06.12.2012 which reads as follows:
“Nothing said in the judgment dated 3-9-2012 in O.P(C) No.2089/2011 will disable the petitioner to submit a representation to the Branch Manager (the respondent herein) claiming the benefit of the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 within a period of 20 days from today. Such representation will be referred to the Grievance Redressal Officer for the purpose of examination in terms of the judgment dated 23-11-2012 in W.P.(C) No.23812/2012”.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that in terms of the direction of this Court, he has filed Ext.P5 objection detailing the benefit to which he is entitled and pointing out that no amount is liable to be recovered by him. The grievance now voiced is that without disposing of the objection filed in terms of the order in the review petition which is referred to above, execution court is proceeding with the execution.
O.P.(C) No.2560/2014 3
4. It is difficult to understand the steps resorted to by the lower appellate court. This Court had, in the review petition, permitted the petitioner to file a representation to the Grievance Redressal Officer for the purpose of examination in terms of the judgment dated 23-11-2012 in the writ petition. The petitioner has obviously filed Ext.P5 representation and it is still pending. The claim of the petitioner is that he is not liable to pay the amount.
5. The representation having not been disposed of by the authorities concerned, one fails to understand how the court below can proceed with the execution.
This Original Petition is disposed of with a direction to take up Ext.P5 representation filed by the petitioner in terms of the order in the review petition and dispose of it in accordance with law, if not already disposed of, within a period of one month from today. Till then, sale shall be kept in abeyance.
Sd/-
smp P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE