JUDGMENT

Ajithkumar, J.

These Appeal and Original Petition relate to a common order of the Sub Court (Execution Court), Kochi, in E.A.Nos.81 and 82 of 2020 in E.P.No.1 of 2020 in O.S.No.23 of 2019. Hence, both these matters are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. This is the second time this Court considers the matter. E.A.No.81 of 2020 was filed by the appellant under Order XXI, Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to lift the attachment ordered by the Execution Court with respect to 11.09 Ares of property belonging to the 2nd respondent and the machinery therein. The appellant filed E.A.No.82 of 2020 seeking to give a direction to the 1st respondent-decree holder to remove the movable articles from the petition schedule premises. The Execution Court as per the order dated 26.08.2021 disposed of the said execution applications. The 1st respondent preferred Ex.F.A.No.18 of 2021 challenging the said order of the Execution Court. This Court allowed Ex.F.A.No.18 of 2021 as per the judgment dated 04.01.2022 and the order dated 26.08.2021 was set aside. The Sub Court, Kochi, was directed to reconsider E.A.No.81 of 2020 after affording a reasonable opportunity to both sides to produce additional evidence, both oral and documentary, and to take an appropriate decision in the matter.

3. In obedience to the said direction, the Sub Court, Kochi, reconsidered the matter. As per the common order dated 18.03.2022, the Sub Court allowed E.A.No.81 of 2020 with respect to the immovable property and the attachment with respect to 11.09 Ares of land comprised in Sy.No.567/5 and 567/13 of Rameswaram Village was lifted. Insofar as E.A.No.82 of 2020 was concerned, the Sub Court passed an order directing the 1st respondent-decree holder to expedite the proceedings for conducting auction of the machinery and movables in the said landed property and till such time the said movables are sold in auction, the appellant was directed to keep them in the present condition.

4. The appellant is aggrieved by the direction issued to it as per the impugned order to keep the machinery and movables in the petition schedule immovable properties in respect of which the right of the appellant has been upheld. Challenging that part of the order, the appellant has filed this Appeal and the Original Petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and also the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2.

6. As far as the order in E.A.No.81 of 2020 is concerned, none of the parties has raised any objection. The appellant maintains that it has already taken over possession of the petition schedule immovable property of 11.09 Ares of land under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002, for realisation of money due to it from the 2nd respondent and the same is proposed to be sold in auction. Since the machinery and movable properties, which are under attachment on the application filed by the 1st respondent in E.P.No.82 of 2020 in O.S.No.23 of 2019 are kept in that landed property, the appellant is unable to proceed with the auction proceedings for the sale of it.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that auction sale of the said property was proclaimed by the authorised officer and a purchaser bid it. However, on account of the delay occasioned in removing the machinery and the movables, the bidder had withdrawn and that has resulted in a huge loss to the appellant. Taking that into account, it is absolutely necessary to direct the 1st respondent to remove the machinery and articles from the said property without any delay. The learned counsel contended that the court below did not consider that into account and passed an erroneous order whereby directing the appellant to keep the machinery and articles in the property till the same could be sold out in auction on the motion of the 1st respondent. It is contended that such a