Dismissed

State of Kerala,Rep.by Dist.Collector v. Scaria John

Kerala HC11 Jun 2008CRP/251/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a revision petition challenging an execution court order refusing to condone a 1088-day delay. The court held that since the decree amount was deposited and the sale was subsequently set aside, there was no necessity to condone the delay or interfere with the impugned order. Both petitions were dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Revision Petition and Civil Revision Petition dismissed; no condonation of delay granted due to outcome of sale.

State of Kerala,Rep.by Dist.Collector Vs Scaria John — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2008 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1930 CRP.No. 251 of 2008() --------------------AGAINST THE ORDER IN EP 20/2002 IN LAR.10/1990 of SUB COURT,THODUPUZHA ....................

¶3

REVN. PETITIONER: JUDGMENT DEBTOR;

¶4

--------------------------------------------STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.BINDU R.

¶5

RESPONDENTS: DECREE HOLDER; ------------------------------------SCARIA JOHN, PUTHENPILIL HOUSE, KANJAR. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI SRI.SAJI SANKARAN NAIR

¶6

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶7

ORDER ON I.A.NO.716/2008 IN C.R.P.NO.251/2008

¶8

11.6.2008 DISMISSED Sd/- M.Sasidharan Nambiar Judge

¶9

/true copy/

¶10

P.S to Judge

¶11

M.Sasidharan Nambiar,J.

¶12

======================= C.R.P No. 251 of 2008 & C.M.Appl.212 of 2008 =======================

¶13

Dated this the 11th day of June 2008

¶14

The revision petition is filed challenging the

¶15

order of the executing court (Sub Court, Thodupuzha) in E.P.20/2002 in LAR No.10/1990 dated 15.12.2004 rejecting the application for sale and recording the sale of the property in favour of the decree holder being the highest bidder. The revision was filed along with C.M.Appl.212/2008 an application to condone the delay of 1088 days. Respondent filed a counter affidavit.

¶16

Learned Government pleader and learned counsel appearing for respondent were heard.

¶17

The counter affidavit shows that subsequent

¶18

to the sale recorded in the impugned order, E.A.54/2005 was filed to set aside the sale and as

¶19

the decree amount was deposited, the sale was set aside and petitioner filed a cheque application

¶20

CRP No.251/2008 2

¶21

and the cheque application was allowed and the execution petition was closed. In the light of this submission, there is no necessity to condone the delay or to interfere with the order challenged in the revision, as sale itself stands set aside.

¶22

Petition and Civil Revision Petition is

¶23

dismissed.

¶24

M.Sasidharan Nambiar Judge

¶25

tpl/-

¶26

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶27

--------------------CRL.R.P.NO. /08 --------------------ORDER

¶28

MARCH,2008

State of Kerala,Rep.by Dist.Collector v. Scaria John

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Kerala,Rep.by Dist.Collector v. Scaria John

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ittirarappan Vs Krishnan

Janaki & Another Vs Sunil & Others

Sunitha Vs Gopalakrishnan Nair & Another

Sasikumar Vs C.R.Omana and Others

Omana Sudha and Others Vs Devaki Seetha & Others

Kannadasan Vs Kochumol and Another