Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

LOHITHAKSHAN, AGED 57 YEARS versus VIJAYA KURIES & LOANS PVT.LIMITED

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


LOHITHAKSHAN, AGED 57 YEARS v. VIJAYA KURIES & LOANS PVT.LIMITED - WP(C) No. 16718 of 2004(M) [2007] RD-KL 10742 (20 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 16718 of 2004(M)

1. LOHITHAKSHAN, AGED 57 YEARS,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. VIJAYA KURIES & LOANS PVT.LIMITED,
... Respondent

2. FRANCIS, S/O. ELAVATHUNKAL JACOB,

3. VINCENT, S/O. DO. DO., CHOWUR VILLAGE,

4. KUMPILA, DO. DO.

5. M.V. FRANCIS, S/O. MARIYEEDEN,

For Petitioner :SRI.K.A.SREEJITH

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

Dated :20/06/2007

O R D E R

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.

.......................................................... W.P.(C)No.16718 OF 2004 ...........................................................

DATED THIS THE 20TH JUNE, 2007



J U D G M E N T

Exts.P3 and P4 orders passed by the execution court on an application for review filed by the petitioner seeking review of an earlier order dismissing a claim petition filed by him under Order XXI Rule 98 C.P.C. and a separate application seeking condonation of delay caused in the matter are under challenge in this Writ Petition. Ext.P4 is the order on the application for condonation of delay. Ext.P4 is supportable in view of the indisputable position that the execution court did not have power to condone delay. The grievance of the petitioner is that even before the claim petition filed under Order XXI Rule 98 was adjudicated, the execution court dismissed the same on the reason that the E.P. is dismissed.

2. If the facts are as alleged by the petitioner, i.e., if the petition filed by the petitioner under Order XXI Rule 98 was dismissed only on the reason that the E.P. was dismissed and if the petitioner continues to be in possession of the property, the dismissal of the claim petition will not stand in the way of the petitioner lodging claims as and when WP(C)N0.16718/04 there is an attempt by anybody to dispossess him. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

(PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)

tgl WP(C)N0.16718/04 WP(C)N0.16718/04

(PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)

tgl WP(C)N0.16718/04 WP(C)N0.16718/04


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.