clr/1968/1968_3_651.pdf

1968 Nov. 19 [TRIANTAFYLLIDES, J.] IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 146OF THE CONSTITUTION CHRYSTALLA CONSTANTiNiDou v. CHRYSTALLA CONSTANTTNIDOU, Applicant, and

1. THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS, THROUGH THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS AND SURVEYS,
2. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS,
3. LOI20S SOFOCLEOUS,
4. THALIA KYRIAKIDOU, CAPTAIN, Respondents. (Case No.362/68;. Sale of mortgaged property—Application for provisional order postponingforced sale—Jurisdiction—Article 146of the Constitution. The facts sufficiently appear inthe judgment ofthe Court. Cases referred to: Charalambides and The Republic,4 R.S.C.C.
5. Application. Application for a provisional order postponing the forced sale by public auction of Applicant's immovable property, pending the determination of a recourse against the validity of the decision of Respondent 1 fixingthe sale for the 24th November,
6. E. Emilianides, for the Applicant. G. Ladas, for Respondent No.
7. Respondent 3 appears in person. Ch.Savvides,ofthe District LandsOffice Nicosia, present. The following Decision was delivered by: TRIANTAFYLLIDES, J.: In this case the Applicant applies for a Provisional Order postponing theforced sale, bypublic auction, of her immovable propery in Nicosia town, which is subject to mortgage H069187; such sale has been fixed for the 24th November, 1968,by the Director of the Lands Office, Nicosia, for purposes of satisfaction ofa debt, secured by the aforesaid mortgage and being due by the Applicant to Respondents 3 and
8. 651 REPUBLIC (DIRECTOR OF LANDS AND SURVEYS) AND OTHERS 1968 Nov. 19 CHRYSTALLA CONSTANTINIDOU V. REPUBLIC (DIRECTOR OF LANDS AND SURVEYS) AND OTHERS The relevant decision of the Director was communicated to the Applicant by means of a letter dated the 10th October, 1968 (see exhibit 1). The first matter, which calls for examination, is whether or not I have competence, under Article 146of the Constitution, to entertain at all this recourse; because if I have no such competence, then Icannot, possibly, grant the Provisional Order applied for. In view of the decision of the Supreme Constitutional Court in Charalambides and The Republic (4 R.S.C.C. p. 24), I have no difficulty in reaching the conclusion that I have no competence to entertain a recourse against the decision communicated to the Applicant by means of exhibit 1; therefore, I cannot grant a Provisional Order in these proceedings. Counsel for the Applicant has complained, also, in argument, that the£2,100reserve price, for the property concerned of the Applicant, as fixed in the relevant notice of sale, is the product of erroneous administrative action. Thismattercannot bedealt with bythis Courtinthe present recourse because it is quite clear, on the material before me, that, in the meantime, after the recourse had been filed, there has supervened further administrative action which has raised the reserve price to £4,915; and if the Applicant complains that even the re-fixed reserve price is too low, then she may take such appropriate steps in the matter as she may deem fit. In the result the application for a Provisional Order has to be dismissed. Regarding the costs for today's proceedings, 1 see no reason why they should not be awarded against the Applicant and in favour of Respondent 4,who isappearing through counsel; I fix such costs at £ 8 Application for provisional order dismissed; orderfor costs as above. 652