Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

OMANAKUTTAN PILLAI, AGED 59 YEARS versus K.K.RAMACHANDRA PANICKER

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


OMANAKUTTAN PILLAI, AGED 59 YEARS v. K.K.RAMACHANDRA PANICKER - WP(C) No. 16415 of 2007(D) [2007] RD-KL 14691 (1 August 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 16415 of 2007(D)

1. OMANAKUTTAN PILLAI, AGED 59 YEARS,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. K.K.RAMACHANDRA PANICKER,
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.P.VINODKUMAR

For Respondent :SRI.V.MANOJ KUMAR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

Dated :01/08/2007

O R D E R

M.N.KRISHNAN, J.

WP(C)No. 16415 OF 2007 D

Dated this the 1st August, 2007.



JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed to set aside Ext.P2. The writ petitioner is the judgment debtor in the execution petition. For the realisation of the amount the property belonging to him was sold in auction and the decree holder with the permission of the court bid it for Rs.70,100/- and after appropriating the amount due deposited the balance amount on the very same day and I am informed that the sale was confirmed at about 11.05 a.m. on 30.5.2007. The petitioner herein did not move his little finger to set aside the sale under Order XXI Rule 90 CPC or to deposit the amount under Order XXI Rule 89 and now he has filed a writ petition for redressal of the grievance. So legally he is not entitled for any relief. Counsel for the decree holder is also heard. The decree holder is more concerned about the the amount rather than the property. So, if the writ petitioner herein pays the amount within a stipulated time of two months then naturally the decree holder is inclined to relinquish his right which he had obtained by virtue of the auction purchase. I feel that to avoid unnecessary expenditure the court need not issue a sale certificate now. If the writ petitioner pays 50% of the WPC 16415/07 2 amount due within a period of one month and pays the entire decree amount with the expenses incurred by the decree holder for executing the decree inclusive of costs then the court below shall set aside the sale giving benefit on the ground that the decree holder does not want the property. If 50% of the amount is not paid within one month as directed, the court below shall issue sale certificate in favour of the decree holder and the decree holder will be entitled to proceed in accordance with law for delivery of the property as well. When the amount is deposited and he relinquishes his right, the decree holder shall be permitted to withdraw the entire amount and the writ petitioner herein shall not raise any objection and is not entitled to do it. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN Judge jj


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.