The High Court allowed a review petition and imposed stricter conditions on the petitioner to satisfy a part of the decree debt within fifteen days to defer property sale proceedings.
Payment of Rs.75,000/- within 15 days; deferral of sale of petitioner's property proceedings upon compliance.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2008 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1929
RP.No. 145 of 2008(I) --------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.23185/2006 Dated 29/06/2007 ....................
REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
RADHA PURUSHOTHAMAN, AGED 56 YEARS, W/O. PURUSHOTHAMAN, VRINDAVAN,THRIKKANNARPURAM, POOVATHOOR P.O., KOIPURAM, THIRUVALLA.
BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN
SRI.GEORGE MATHEW
RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS:
SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KARITHANAM BY G.P. SRI.MUHAMMED ANZAR
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.
R.P.145 of 2008 in W.P.(C) 23185/2006
Dated this the 3rd day of March , 2008
O R D E R
On this Review Petition coming up for admission, I have heard the submissions of Sri. George Mathew the learned counsel for the review petitioner. Though the name of Sri.George Varghese Karithanam, the learned counsel for the respondents decree holder is show in the cause list, there is no resistance to the submissions of Sri.George Mathew. I am of the view that, on the facts and circumstances, which obtain in this case, there is justification for allowing the Review Petition imposing more rigorous conditions on the petitioner.
days from today and produce memo before the Execution Court. Once the Execution Court notices that memo, the court should
R.P.145/2008
2
construe the payment evidenced by the memo as satisfactory compliance of the directions in my judgment dated 29.6.2007. The judgment is reviewed to that extent. Once payment of Rs.75,000/- is made as ordered herein, the court below hear both the parties once again on the issue as to what is the correct balance amount payable by the petitioner and pass orders. It is open to the petitioner to urge all grounds raised by her in the writ
petition at the time of hearing. Proceedings for sale of the petitioner's property in execution of the decree should be deferred till there is compliance with the directions in this order. If the sum of Rs.75,000/- is not paid as directed herein, the Review Petition will stand dismissed.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE.
dpk
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a review petition praying for lighter conditions on the petitioner is justify when the petitioner has resisted the original proceedings.
Whether the execution court can proceed with the sale of the petitioner's property before complying with the directions in the review order.
Radha Purushothaman
M/s. St.George Investments & Kuries
Cherian George
Anu Saji
Sunu George
Pius C. Kuriakose
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
