Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BALACHANDRAN, S/O.MADHAVAN ACHARI versus PARAMESWARAN NAIR, KARTHIKA VEEDU

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


BALACHANDRAN, S/O.MADHAVAN ACHARI v. PARAMESWARAN NAIR, KARTHIKA VEEDU - WP(C) No. 6624 of 2007(L) [2007] RD-KL 4319 (27 February 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 6624 of 2007(L)

1. BALACHANDRAN, S/O.MADHAVAN ACHARI,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. PARAMESWARAN NAIR, KARTHIKA VEEDU,
... Respondent

2. M.A.NARAYANA KURUP, VASANTHAM VEEDU,

For Petitioner :SRI.R.ARUN RAJ

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN

Dated :27/02/2007

O R D E R

K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C)NO.6624 OF 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 27th day of February 2007



JUDGMENT

Petitioner is the judgment debtor in O.S.232/04 on the file of Munsiff's Court, Changanacherry. In execution of decree in O.S.234/04 it is submitted that the delivery stands posted to tomorrow.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that O.S.262/06 filed by the petitioner against the decree holders for a declaration that the suit document in O.S.232/04 is one fabricated fraudulently as a sale deed when actually it was intended as a mortgage deed is pending before the Munsiff's Court, Changanacherry and that an appeal also is filed against the decree and judgment in O.S.232/04 before the District Court, Kottarakkara from which however no stay could be obtained as there was delay of 135 days in filing the appeal and that therefore stay of delivery be ordered. It is overruling the objection filed by the petitioner that Ext.P1 order is passed by the Execution Court allowing execution of the decree in O.S.232/04 and posted the execution petition for W.P.(C)NO.6624 OF 2007 2 delivery to 28.2.2007. The said order is passed on 7.2.2007. In view of the delay in filing this writ petition, I do not find any reason why even breathing time has to be given to the petitioner, especially when he was not at all vigilant in prosecuting the case and even appeal from the decree under execution was filed with a delay of 135 days. When the appellate court is not able to pass order of stay in view of delay in filing the appeal it is not proper for the judgment debtor to approach this court filing a writ petition seeking stay of execution. This writ petition in the circumstances is devoid of merit and is dismissed.

K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE

jes


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.