Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

V.M.ABDULKALAM, SON OF V.K.MUHAMMED versus V.M.MARIAM BEEVI, W/O.P.A.MOHAMMED SALI

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


V.M.ABDULKALAM, SON OF V.K.MUHAMMED v. V.M.MARIAM BEEVI, W/O.P.A.MOHAMMED SALI - CRP No. 1001 of 2006 [2006] RD-KL 4037 (20 December 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRP No. 1001 of 2006()

1. V.M.ABDULKALAM, SON OF V.K.MUHAMMED
... Petitioner

Vs

1. V.M.MARIAM BEEVI, W/O.P.A.MOHAMMED SALI,
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.V.GIRI

For Respondent :SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K)

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

Dated :20/12/2006

O R D E R

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

C.R.P.NO.1001 OF 2006 (A)

Dated this the 20 th day of December, 2006.

ORDER

Petitioner is judgment debtor and respondent the decree holder. This petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, challenging the order for delivery of the property by the executing court. Case of petitioner was that though the first appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench, petitioner filed a petition for review of the said judgment. R.P.1030/06 and as quorum of Judges to hear the review petition was not constituted, petitioner is not able to get an order of stay and to enable petitioner to obtain an order from Division Bench, delivery is to be stayed. To enable petitioner sufficient opportunity from the Division Bench as per order dated 8.12.06, petitioner was granted sufficient time. Still petitioner could not get an order. The time granted cannot be extended further.

2. The other contention raised in this petition was that as C.R.P.NO.1001 OF 2006 (A) 2 per the decree, saw mill and the machineries belong to petitioner and he is entitled to remove the same and the order does not show that petitioner is entitled to remove the same. It is made clear that before taking delivery, petitioner is entitled to remove the saw mill and the machineries installed there in. If petitioner fails to remove them, respondent can seek appropriate order from the executing court for their removal at the expense of petitioner. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,

JUDGE.

bkn


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.