1 OPC 1306/24 2025:KER:26673 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1947 OP(C) NO. 1306 OF 2024 OS NO.166 OF 2013 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT/PRINCIPAL SUB COURT /COMMERCIAL COURT,NORTH PARAVUR ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER IN EP NO.6 OF 2020 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT/PRINCIPAL SUB COURT / COMMERCIAL COURT,NORTH PARAVUR PETITIONER/S: KULATHU IYYER, S.S, AGED 89 YEARS S/O. LATE S.S.M. SUBBIAH IYYER, SUDHARMA, 14/252, NEAR VARMA CLINIC, TRIPUNITHURA, PIN - 680306 BY ADVS. SINDHU SANTHALINGAM A.D.SHAJAN JESSY S.SALIM RESPONDENT/S: E.A. JAYAKUMAR @ JAYAN PUTHENPURACKAL S/O. AYYAPPAN PILLAI, VISHNU VIHAR, PLOT NO. 209, THEEN MOORTHY NAGAR, PONEKARA, EDAPPALLY., PIN - 682041 BY ADVS.ABRAHAM P.GEORGE M.SANTHY(K/001410/1999) RISHABH DILRAJ(K/000501/2024) OTHER PRESENT: ADV. SANTHALINGAM SR. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 3.3.2025, THE COURT ON 26.03.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 OPC 1306/24 2025:KER:26673 JUDGMENT (Dated this the 26th day of March 2025) The petitioner herein is the decree holder/auction purchaser and the respondent is the judgment debtor in E.P. 6/2020 in O.S 166/2013, on the files of the Sub Court, Paravur. This petition is filed assailing the order in E.A. No 183/2023, dated 28.2.2024, in the abovesaid E.P. 2. The petitioner is an octogenarian, who lent an amount of Rs. 7 lakhs to the respondent, on 02.09.2008. The respondent provided cheques that were subsequently dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The petitioner filed O.S. No. 166/2013 in the Sub Court, Ernakulam, on 18.02.2013, to which the respondent has filed a written statement dated 30.01.2014, stating that he has no means to pay and asserted the absence of property within the court's jurisdiction. Due to the respondent's repeated absences, he was declared ex-parte and an ex-parte decree was 3 OPC 1306/24 2025:KER:26673 passed against him on 05.01.2016. Thereafter, the respondent filed a petition to set aside this decree as I.A. No. 4585/2016, which was allowed and the case was included in the list on 01.09.2016. The respondent again failed to appear, leading to a second ex-parte decree on 05.09.2016, following the setting aside of the second ex-parte decree again. 3. The respondent agreed to settle the dispute through mediation and on the basis of the mediation agreement, a judgment was passed in terms of the mediation. 4. The petitioner filed E.P 93/2018 in the Sub Court, Ernakulam. The respondent appeared on 05.10.2018, and filed an objection on 26.10.2018. The Execution Court recorded "no cross for Judgment Debtor ", since he did not appear before the court on 7.11.2018. Subsequently, the respondent filed another objection as Ext P3 in E.A. 774/2018 in E.P. 93/2018, again claiming inability to pay and stated that no property is situated 4 OPC 1306/24 2025:KER:26673 within the jurisdiction of the Execution Court. Since the respondent's property was at Paravur, E.P No. 93/2018 was transferred to the Sub Court, Paravur, and renumbered as E.P No. 6/2020 and the Sub Court was directed by Ext.P4 to dispose of the E.P. within six months. 5. Thereafter, on 27.1.2021, both parties appeared, but on 29.1.2021, the respondent requested more time to file objections, and was posted to 11.2.2021. On that day, neither the respondent nor his counsel appeared, and the matter was posted for further steps on 18.2.2021. Subsequently, an attachment schedule (Ext P5) was filed by the petitioner on 17.2.2021. On 18.2.2021, as there was no representation from the respondent, the petitioner submitted the Fair Value Statement (Ext P6) and Encumbrance Certificate (Ext P7). 6. The court ordered attachment and issued a warrant, scheduling the sale proclamation on 20.3.2021. The sale was 5 OPC 1306/24 2025:KER:26673 conducted on 17.1.2022, with an upset price of Rs. 15,75,000/-, and was confirmed on 23.3.2022. 7. The respondent failed to appear before the Execution Court on 4.1.2021, despite serving of notice and the court below noted appearance of the decree holder and the endorsement of Rule 67 shows that the process was served and the same returned unserved in view of Covid -19 restrictions. The respondent did not object to the attachment schedule filed by the petitioner and the draft sale proclamation was produced on 24.3.2021. 8. On 8.9.2021, as per order in E.A. No. 53/2021, the petitioner was permitted to participate in the auction, and the property was sold for Rs. 15,78,900/-. In fact, the decree amount as on 8.9.2021 was more than that of the purchase price, but the Court has miscalculated the same and has ordered for payment of balance. On 9.11.2021, the execution court noted that the balance 6 OPC 1306/24 2025:KER:26673 consideration is not deposited, and the sale was not confirmed and resale was ordered. 9. On 30.11.2021, the court ordered notices to be affixed to the property and directly served at the respondent's residence. The upset price was fixed at Rs. 15,75,000/-, and the sale was scheduled for 17.01.2022. On 18.1.2022, the court recorded that the property was auctioned for Rs. 15,76,000/- and scheduled the sale confirmation for 19.3.2022. The sale was confirmed on 23.01.2022, and the E.P was closed. A Commission Application as E.A. No.76/2022 was filed, and notice was served on the respondent and a report was filed on 12.12.2022 (Ext P9), and the E.A was closed. The petitioner, therefore, obtained the encumbrance in respect of the property from the Village office. 10. Meanwhile, the petitioner filed E.A. No. 296/2022, dated 24.3.2022 (Ext.P11), to remit stamp duty of Rs. 1,26,000/-. E.A. No. 230/2022, Ext P12, dated 8.6.2022, was filed to obtain 7 OPC 1306/24 2025:KER:26673 a certified copy of the schedule of the respondent's adjacent property in E.P. No. 146/2017, along with the obtained schedule. Ext.P13, E.A. No. 209/2022 dated 27.9.2022 was filed to appoint a surveyor to prepare a sketch and boundary of the scheduled property. An application was filed on 15.11.2022 to issue a Sale Certificate based on the Commission report and sketch as E.A. No. 292/2022. Ext.P14 and Ext.P15 are the sale certificates issued by the Sub Court, Paravur and that in E.A No 292/2022 respectively. Thereafter, the petitioner filed E.A. No. 113/2023 (Ext P17), requesting the court to depute an Amin for delivery of the property. 11. After deliberately protracting the proceedings, the respondent filed an objection Ext.P18, to the said E.A. on 25.9.2023. Subsequently, the respondent filed an E.A.No. 183 of 2023 (Ext P19), dated 28.9.2023, under Section 47 read with Section 151 CPC, seeking to set aside the sale conducted on 8 OPC 1306/24 2025:KER:26673 17.01.2022, the confirmation of sale on 23.2.2022, and the cancellation of the sale certificate dated 13.6.2023. 12. On 28.2.2024, the court passed an order (Ext P21) allowing the said E.A filed under sec 47 thereby setting aside the sale confirmation and the issuance of the sale certificate. Hence, aggrieved by Ext P21, present O.P.(C) is filed. 13. The counsel for the petitioner contents that Under Order 21 rule 72(2) CPC, the amount of decree may be taken as payment of purchase money by decree holder who purchases the property with the permission of the court. The execution court on 08.09.2021, has ordered that the property was auctioned for Rs.15,78,900/- and for payment of balance, case was adjourned to 09.11.2021. The decree amount available with the court was Rs.16,29,833/- as on 08.09.2021, which is more than the purchase price. The execution court miscalculated the decree amount to be lesser than the purchase price and consequently ordered for resale. 9 OPC 1306/24 2025:KER:26673 It ought not to have ordered for resale of the property. 14. He further contended that there is no irregularity in the publication or conduct of the sale as alleged and the irregularities alleged were only to attract section 47 CPC and to escape from the limitation period. The judgment debtor neither filed objection to the commission report nor examined the commissioner. He had not substantiated any of his contentions by adducing evidence. He has not objected to the auction sale at the appropriate stage. Thus, he has no authority to question the validity of any of the earlier proceedings at a subsequent stage. The execution court failed to consider the merits of the case and acted merely on the basis of groundless allegations from the side of the respondent/Judgment debtor. The finding of the court that no notice was served under Order 21 R 66 CPC is not correct as the Amin has obtained the signature of Judgment Debtor on both occasions. Affidavit verifying sale proclamation was also served 10 OPC 1306/24 2025:KER:26673 on him. In the present case, substance of the application shows that it falls under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC because the sale alleged to be vitiated was due to the irregularities which comes under Order 21 Rule 90 and not under Section 47. The respondent/Judgment Debtor has filed Section 47 petition so as to escape from the period of limitation. Thus, the execution court ought to have held that order in E.A. 183/2023 filed under sec 47 read with section 151 CPC, is illegal and hence not maintainable. 15. Per contra, the counsel for the respondent submitted that after the first sale was set aside for non-payment of the balance sale consideration, the execution court on 9.11.2021, did not confirm the sale and re-sale was ordered. On 30.11.2021, the execution court posted the case for settlement of proclamation and issued notice to the judgment debtor to be served directly or by affixture and posted it to 2.12.2021. On that day, the execution court, without verifying as to the service of Rule 66 notice, fixed 11 OPC 1306/24 2025:KER:26673 the upset price at Rs.15,75,000/- and ordered sale on 17.01.2022 and for report on 18.01.2022. The Rule 66 notice was served on the respondents only on 14.12.2022 and thus an opportunity to object to the fixing of upset price and objection to the sale was denied. Thus, the sale conducted on 17.01.2022 is vitiated by material irregularities. The execution court had allowed the petition filed by the respondent under section 47 of the CPC as there is material irregularities. Thus, no interference is warranted to Ext.P21. 16. The question that arise for consideration is whether any interference is warranted to Ext.P21 order passed under Section 47 CPC. The execution court had raised 9 points while considering the application under Section 47 CPC. The first two points related to service of notice under Order 21 Rule 66 CPC. The execution court held that no notice was served on the 12 OPC 1306/24 2025:KER:26673 respondent before the sale of the property on 08.09.2021. Ext.P2 is a notice issued by the execution court to the respondent under Order 21 Rule 66 CPC intimating regarding the sale of the property on 08.09.2021. The endorsement of the amin on 03.08.2021 shows that the notice was affixed on the schedule property village office, Panchayath office as well as in the notice board of the court. Therefore, the finding of the execution court on point Nos.1 and 2 is factually wrong. 17. Point Nos.3 and 4 are regarding the service of fresh proclamation ordered under Order 21 Rule 87 which was served on the judgment debtor. The execution court came to a definite conclusion that decree holder has not taken steps for the resale of the schedule property mandated under Order 21 Rule 87. Ext.P28 is the notice of re-sale on 17.1.2022. The notice shows that the judgment debtor/respondent accepted the notice on 14.12.2021 in person and it was affixed on the schedule property, village office, 13 OPC 1306/24 2025:KER:26673 panchayat office as well as on the notice board of the court. Thus, the finding of the court is against facts as notice was served on 14.12.2021. 18. Point Nos.5 and 6 relate to the fixing of upset price on the basis of the encumbrance certificate issued for a period of 12 years. The execution court had clearly stated that the decree holder had produced a copy of the notification dated 03.04.2022 fixing the fair value of the land in Kerala Gazette and the upset price was fixed on the basis of the fair value. Moreover Ext.P7 shows that encumbrance certificate is for a period of 12 years. Thus, the finding in point Nos.5 and 6 are also wrong. 19. As far as the 7th point is concerned, the question is regarding the identification of the scheduled property. It is to be noted that the execution court has ordered attachment of the property scheduled as Ext.P5 after identification of a part of the property. Moreover, after receipt of the notice in the execution 14 OPC 1306/24 2025:KER:26673 proceedings and being represented in the court through an Advocate on 27.11.2021, no objection is filed by the respondent. Therefore, at the second stage, the respondent cannot raise such a contention. There was no objection to the same extent of property when the first sale was conducted on 8.9.2021. From the discussions made above, it can be safely concluded that the execution court had, on a wrong appreciation of the facts and documents, entered into a wrong and perverse finding to set aside the sale under Section 47 CPC. 20. The next question to be considered is whether an application under Section 47 is maintainable to set aside a sale on the ground of material irregularities or fraud in publishing or conducting it. 21. The apex court in M/S. Brakewel Automotive Components (India) Pvt. Ltd v. P.R Selvam Alagappan, reported in 2017 (5) SCC 371, has held that section 47 of the 15 OPC 1306/24 2025:KER:26673 Code mandates determination by an executing court, questions arising between the parties or their representatives relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree and does not contemplate any adjudication beyond the same. A decree of court of law being sacrosanct in nature, the execution thereof ought not to be thwarted on mere asking and on untenable and purported grounds having no bearing on the validity or the executability thereof. 22. Judicial precedents are to the effect that the purview of scrutiny under Section 47 of the Code qua a decree is limited to objections to its executability on the ground of jurisdictional infirmity or voidness are plethoric. This Court, amongst others in Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi v. Rajabhai Abdul Rehman and others [1971 (1) SCR 66], in essence enunciated that only a decree which is a nullity can be the subject matter of objection under Section 47 of the Code and not one which is erroneous 16 OPC 1306/24 2025:KER:26673 either in law or on facts. 23. Dhurandhar Prasad Singh v. Jai Prakash University & Ors [2001 (6) SCC 534] also reiterates that the exercise of powers under section 47 is very narrow and microscopic and the execution court can allow objection under sec 47 to the executability of the decree if it is found that the same is void ab initio and a nullity, apart from the ground that the decree is not capable of execution under the law. 24. As per the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagan Singh and Company v. Ludhiana Improvement Trust And Others, reported in [(2024) 3 SCC 308], Order 21 Rule 90(3) of the said Code clearly states that no application to set aside a sale on grounds of irregularity or fraud under the Rule can be entertained on any ground which the applicant would have taken on or before the date on which the proclamation of sale was drawn up. The Explanation to the Rule 17 OPC 1306/24 2025:KER:26673 further says that mere absence of or defect in attachment of the property sold, should not by itself be a ground for setting aside the sale under this rule. 25. In Rajarethna Naikkan v. Parameswara Kurup in (1997 (1) KLT 777), this court had occasion to consider the difference between section 47 and Order 21 Rule 90 CPC, wherein it was held that when a judgment debtor makes an application under Order 21 Rule 90, he accepts the factum of the sale and seeks to challenge it on the ground that the sale is vitiated by material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting the sale. When an application under Section 47 CPC is made by a judgment debtor challenging the sale, he claims the sale to be void for illegality or in any event voidable on grounds other than those referred to in Order 21 Rule 90. The errors committed in settling the sale proclamation are mere irregularities and cannot be described as errors which render a sale void and hence, Order 21 18 OPC 1306/24 2025:KER:26673 Rule 90 application alone can be filed. Therefore, in a case where the judgment debtor invokes Section 47, Order 21 Rule 90 of the Code could not be applied. 26. To put it otherwise, it is the material irregularity or fraud which affects the method and manner of publishing the proclamation and the actual conduct of the sale clothes the Court with a jurisdiction to set aside the sale under Order 21 Rule 90 C.P.C. Where Order 21 Rule 90 applies, Section 47 is not available. However, where there is inherent illegality in the execution application, the same is a matter arising in execution, outside the purview of Order 21 Rule 90 and thus, within the scope of Section 47 of the Code. This very same proposition of law was laid down by this Court in Subrahmanya Bhat Y. v. P. Santhosh Kumar and Another, (2010 KHC 318) and in Jayarajan v. Sambasivan, [2022 (2) KLT 624]. 27. In fact, the period of limitation to set aside a sale 19 OPC 1306/24 2025:KER:26673 under Order 21 Rule 90 C.P.C. is governed by Article 127 of the Limitation Act where the period provided is 60 days from the date of sale. On the other hand, while filing an application under Section 47 C.P.C, it is three years from the date of sale under Article 137 of the Limitation Act. 28. The Apex Court in S.A. Sundararajan v. A.P.V. Rajendran, 1981 KHC 74, affirming the Full Bench decision of Madras High Court in A.P.V. Rajendran v. S.A. Sundararajan and others, (AIR 1980 Madras 123), has held that settling the proclamation of sale is part of the integral process of publishing the sale and irregularities committed in that process fall within the amplitude of Order 21 Rule 90 and thus, the Judgment Debtor cannot escape the period of limitation by framing his application as one under section 47 CPC. Thus, it can be safely concluded that the present application filed by the respondent under Section 47 is not at all maintainable 20 OPC 1306/24 2025:KER:26673 as those aspects fall directly under the question to be adjudicated under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC. On that score also, Ext.P9 is perverse and illegal within its exercise of jurisdiction. Accordingly, I am of the view that Ext.P9 is to be set aside, and I do so. In the result, this O.P.(C.) is allowed. Sd/- BASANT BALAJI JUDGE dl/ 21 OPC 1306/24 2025:KER:26673 APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1306/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 30/9/2016 IN I A NO. 4585/2016 IN OS 166/2023 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 30/8/2017 IN O S NO. 166/2013 OF THE SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM TOGETHER WITH AGREEMENT OF THE ERNAKULAM MEDIATION CENTRE Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DTD. 19/11/2018 IN E A 774/2018 IN EP 93/2018 IN OS 166/2023 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 24/11/2020 IN O P ( C) NO. 1706/2020 OF THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ATTACHMENT SCHEDULE OF THE PROPERTY DTD. 17/2/2021 IN E P NO. 6/2020 IN O S NO. 166/2013 BEFORE THE SUB COURT, PARAVUR FILED BY THE PETITIONER Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE FAIR VALUE STATEMENT PUBLISHED IN GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DTD. 3/4/2020 Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE DTD. 25/5/2024 OF THE SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, ALANGAD Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER REPORT PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DTD. 17/8/2016 Exhibit P8(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER REPORT PUBLISHED IN JANMABHUMI DAILY DTD. 17/8/2016 Exhibit P9 . A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT DTD. 12/12/2022 IN E A NO. 76/2022 IN E P 6/2022 FILED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, NORTH PARAVUR Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DTD. 22/9/2017 SENT BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ELOOR TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 24/3/2022 IN E A NO. 296/2022 IN E P NO. 6/2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUB COURT PARAVUR 22 OPC 1306/24 2025:KER:26673 Exhibit P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 8/6/2022 IN E A NO. 230/2022 IN E A 76/2022 IN EP NO. 6/2020 IN O S NO. 166/2013 TOGETHER WITH THE SCHEDULE OBTAINED Exhibit P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 27/9/2022 IN E A NO. 209/2022 IN E A 76/2022 IN EP NO. 6/2020 IN O S NO. 166/2013 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUB COURT, PARAVOOR Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE DTD. 13/6/2023 OF THE HON’BLE SUB COURT, PARAVOOR Exhibit P15 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 15/11/2022 IN E A NO. 292/2022 IN EP NO. 6/2020 IN O S NO. 166/2013 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUB COURT, PARAVOOR Exhibit P16 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OBTAINED FROM THE WEB SITE Exhibit P17 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 21/6/2023 IN E A NO. 113/2023 IN EP 6/2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUB COURT, PARAVUR Exhibit P18 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DTD. 25/9/2023 IN E A NO. 113/2023 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE SUB COURT, N. PARAVUR Exhibit P19 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 28/9/2023 IN E A NO. 183/2023 IN E P NO. 6/2022 IN O S NO. 166/2013 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE SUB COURT, NORTH PARAVOOR Exhibit P20 A TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF DOCUMENTS DTD. 28/10/2023 IN E A NO. 183/2023 IN E P NO. 6/2022 IN O S NO. 166/2013 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE SUB COURT, NORTH PARAVOOR Exhibit P21 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 28/2/2024 IN E A NO. 183/2023 IN E P NO. 6/2022 IN O S NO. 166/2013 OF THE SUB COURT, NORTH PARAVUR Exhibit P22 A TRUE COPY OF THE E A NO. 201/2024 IN E A NO. 76/2022 IN E P 6/2020 FILED BEFORE THE EXECUTION COURT FOR FURNISHING THE PETITIONER ALL THE NOTICES ISSUED TO THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR 23 OPC 1306/24 2025:KER:26673 Exhibit P23 A TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DTD. 9/3/2020 ISSUED BY THE SUB COURT, NORTH PARAVUR TO THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR FOR APPEARING BEFORE THE EXECUTION COURT FOR HEARING ON 3/4/2020 Exhibit P24 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEPARTMENT NOTICE DTD. 22/1/2021 ISSUED BY THE PRL. SUB COURT, N. PARAVUR TO THE RESPONDENT/JD TO ATTEND THE HEARING ON 27/1/2021 Exhibit P25 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 30/8/2023 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER TO ATTEND THE COURT TO SUBMIT HIS OBJECTION IN E A 113/2023. THOUGH JUDGMENT DEBTOR HAS CLEVERLY EVADED ACCEPTANCE OF NOTICE, JUDGMENT DEBTOR’S WIFE MAYA DEVI WAS SERVED NOTICE AND HER SIGNATURE WAS ALSO OBTAINED ON 23/8/2023 AND THE AFORESAID NOTICE TOGETHER WITH THE ENDORSEMENT ON THE BACK SIDE Exhibit P26 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCLAMATION NOTICE DTD. 27/7/2021 ACCEPTED BY THE AUTHORISED OFFICER AT COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM ON 3/9/2021 Exhibit P27 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCLAMATION NOTICE DTD. 27/7/2021 AFFIXED ON THE PROPERTY OF THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR Exhibit P28 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCLAMATION NOTICE DTD. 6/12/2021 AFFIXED ON THE PROPERTY OF THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR Exhibit P29 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCLAMATION NOTICE DTD. 6/12/2021 AFFIXED ON THE NOTICE BOARD IN THE OFFICE OF THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR Exhibit P30 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS FROM 6/7/2023 TO 28/2/2024 IN E A NO.113/2023 IN E P 6/2020 IN O S NO. 166/2013 BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, NORTH PARAVUR