Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

LEELA, D/O. KOOLIYATTU NANI AMMA versus PARISH CHIT COMPANY LTD.

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


LEELA, D/O. KOOLIYATTU NANI AMMA v. PARISH CHIT COMPANY LTD. - WP(C) No. 4759 of 2005(N) [2007] RD-KL 11576 (29 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 4759 of 2005(N)

1. LEELA, D/O. KOOLIYATTU NANI AMMA,
... Petitioner

2. AMMUKUTTY AMMA,

Vs

1. PARISH CHIT COMPANY LTD.,
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.C.HARIKUMAR

For Respondent :SRI.JIJO PAUL

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

Dated :29/06/2007

O R D E R

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.

W.P.(C) No. 4759 OF 2005

Dated this the 29th day of June, 2007



JUDGMENT

The order passed by the execution court dismissing an application under Order XXI Rule 90 and the order by the District Judge confirming the same in CMA are under challenge in this Writ Petition under Article

227.

2. Having gone through the impugned orders and having considered the rival submissions addressed before me by the counsel appearing for the parties namely Sri.C.Harikumar, counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Jijo Paul, counsel for the respondent. I have to agree with the learned counsel for the respondent that there is absolutely no warrant for exercising the supervisory jurisdiction over these orders. I therefore confirm the orders subject to what is stated hereunder.

3. However, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioners are in residential occupation of the property in question and that they have no other place to go for shelter in the event of being dispossessed has some appeal. I am inclined to issue the following orders merely on considerations of indulgence and compassion. The order of stay presently passed will be made absolute on WPC No.4759 of 2005 2 condition that the petitioner pays to the respondent to the satisfaction of the respondent, the entire decree debt together with all the expenses incurred by the respondent in connection with the conduct of the sale and purchase of stamp paper for the sale certificate within four months from today. If deposit is made as above directed within the aforesaid time limit, it is open to the petitioner to make an application for setting aside sale under Order XXI Rule 89. In which case the court below after hearing both sides will allow that application and set aside the sale not withstanding the apparent delay. But if the deposit is not made within the stipulated time, the order confirming the impugned order will operate and under such a contingency it will be open to the respondent to take delivery of the properties purchased by them on the strength of sale certificate already issued to them.

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE

btt WPC No.4759 of 2005 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.