Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

E.N. SREEDHARAN NAIR versus V.V. MATHEW

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


E.N. SREEDHARAN NAIR v. V.V. MATHEW - CRP No. 1644 of 1997(H) [2006] RD-KL 813 (20 September 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRP No. 1644 of 1997(H)

1. E.N.SREEDHARAN NAIR
... Petitioner

Vs

1. V.V.MATHEW
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.RAJEEV V.KURUP

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.RAMACHANDRAN

Dated :20/09/2006

O R D E R

M. RAMACHANDRAN, J

C.R.P. NO. 1644 OF 1997

Dated this the 20th day of September, 2006

ORDER

An order passed by the Additional Munsiff, Kottayam in E.P. No. 101/93 in O.S. 438/86 is under challenge. It had been held that the petition of judgment debtor and suerty required to be allowed and sale proceedings was itself set aside. The execution application had been dismissed.

2.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that the decree holder filed E.P. 69/87 against the judgment debtor and notice had been served on the judgment debtor, sale proclamation had been issued and a portion of the property have been sold in auction. On getting that information, the suerty had appeared and filed E.A. 212/91 to set aside the same. However, the E.A. was dismissed for default and the same had been confirmed on 20.7.92.

3.Even though there is reference to want of propriety of the proceedings, learned counsel for the appellant submits that in view of the confirmation of the sale, it may not be open atleast to hold that the application deserved to be dismissed. The petitioner appears to be aggrieved. In the C.R.P notice have been served on the respondents but there is no representation. C.R.P. NO. 1644 OF 1997 2 Since the E.A application is dismissed, it operates against the judgment debtor, and the position cannot at all be ignored. Consequently revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. It is made clear that the disposal of revision petition will not adversely affect the interest of the respondent concerned, to prosecute the matter, as advisable under law. No costs.

M. RAMACHANDRAN ,JUDGE

RV/ C.R.P. NO. 1644 OF 1997 3


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.