Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

A.T. THOMAS, EDAMANNIL VEETTIL versus P.V. KURIEN, PADINJATTETHIL HOUSE

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


A.T. THOMAS, EDAMANNIL VEETTIL v. P.V. KURIEN, PADINJATTETHIL HOUSE - WP(C) No. 28055 of 2004(M) [2007] RD-KL 10050 (12 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 28055 of 2004(M)

1. A.T. THOMAS, EDAMANNIL VEETTIL,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. P.V. KURIEN, PADINJATTETHIL HOUSE,
... Respondent

2. P.K. VARGHESE, AMBALATHUM KAVILAYA

For Petitioner :SRI.JACOB P.ALEX

For Respondent :SRI.LIJU.V.STEPHEN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

Dated :12/06/2007

O R D E R

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.

W.P.(C) No. 28055 OF 2004

Dated this the 12th day of June, 2007



JUDGMENT

Ext.P6 order passed by the execution court in a proceeding for execution of a money decree by sale of properties attached before judgment allowing an application, EA No.142 of 2004, filed by the judgment debtor for appointment of a commission is under challenge. Obviously, the commission application was not the only application which was pending before the learned Subordinate Judge. There was application for delivery of EA No.5 of 1999 filed by the decree holder seeking delivery of the property on the strength of the sale sannad which the court had given to him. EA No. 132 of 1999 application under Order XXI Rule 90 CPC for setting aside the sale was also before the learned Sub Judge. Yet another application filed by the son of the judgment debtor, the 2nd respondent, lodging a claim to the property was also pending.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that while all these applications were pending, the learned Sub Judge has hastily allowed the commission application in a casual manner taking the view that he thinks that " it is better to allow the petition in the interest of justice".

3. Heard both sides. Considering the fact that the commission WPC No.28055 of 2004 2 was sought for vide EA No.142 of 1994 only for the purpose of collecting material in the context of EA No.5 of 1999 and that the very maintainability of EA No.5 of 1999 was seriously challenged by the decree holder, the court below in my view was not justified in allowing the commission application hastily.

4. During the course of hearing, I put a query to the counsel for the respondents whether the respondents are ready and willing to pay off whatever amounts which are due to the decree holder on account of the original decree debt and the sales certificate presently held by him. The learned counsel who appears for both the respondents, the father and son submitted that the respondents are ready and willing to pay off the amounts. I record the above submission.

5. Considering the submissions addressed before me, I set aside Ext.P6 and direct the court below to pass fresh orders on the same. The court below will take up EA No.5 of 1999 filed by the writ petitioner decree holder first, hear the parties on the objections field by the respondents to that EA and pass orders on those objections. If the court below feels that final orders on EA No.5 of 1999 is to be passed only after a decision is taken on EA No.132 of 1999, then the court below will hear the parties preliminarily regarding the maintainability of EA No.132 of 1999 and take a decision whether that EA is maintainable, WPC No.28055 of 2004 3 since the only ground raised therein is gross under valuation in the matter of publication and conduct of sale. After giving a verdict on the question of maintainability of EA No.132 of 1999 only, the learned judge will proceed further with that EA. The EA filed by the 2nd respondent need be taken up by the court below only after the EAs filed by the petitioner and the 1st respondent judgment debtor are disposed of. It is further ordered that before complying with any of the above directions, the learned Sub Judge will give one opportunity to the judgment debtor to pay off all the amounts due to decree holder in full and final settlement of all his claims. The other directions given herein above need be complied with only if it is found that the liability is not settled availing the opportunity so given.

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE

btt WPC No.28055 of 2004 4


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.