Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THOMAS, S/O.VARGHESE, MEECHERRY HOUSE versus JOHNSON, S/O.DEVASSY, CHATHELI HOUSE

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


THOMAS, S/O.VARGHESE, MEECHERRY HOUSE v. JOHNSON, S/O.DEVASSY, CHATHELI HOUSE - WP(C) No. 12503 of 2004(L) [2007] RD-KL 10311 (14 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 12503 of 2004(L)

1. THOMAS, S/O.VARGHESE, MEECHERRY HOUSE,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. JOHNSON, S/O.DEVASSY, CHATHELI HOUSE,
... Respondent

2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE

For Petitioner :SRI.C.A.CHACKO

For Respondent :SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

Dated :14/06/2007

O R D E R

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.

.......................................................... W.P.(C)No.12503 OF 2004 ...........................................................

DATED THIS THE 14TH JUNE, 2007



J U D G M E N T

In execution of a money decree, the property belonging to the petitioner was sold in auction and purchased by the decree-holder, the 1st respondent himself. When delivery was attempted to be taken on the basis of Ext.P3 sale certificate, the petitioner filed this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.

2. On 25.10.2004, when the case came up for consideration, it was submitted by the petitioner that there is a chance for settlement. But the above submission was disputed by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent. This Court, noticing the conflicting positions taken by the counsel, became inclined to grant interim order only on condition that 50% of the entire decree debt is deposited within three weeks. It is conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the above condition was not complied with.

3. I do not think that this Court will be justified in exercising the discretionary jurisdiction in favour of a person who does not comply with the conditions imposed by this Court. Even otherwise, I do not find any reason for upholding the grounds of challenge. The Writ Petition will stand dismissed. However, in order to enable the WP(C)N0.12503/04 petitioner to sort out the issue with the 1st respondent, further proceedings before the court below will be kept in abeyance till 16.8.2007. It is open to the petitioner to have a settlement with the 1st respondent in the meanwhile.

(PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)

tgl WP(C)N0.12503/04 WP(C)N0.12503/04


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.