Dismissed

Parukutty Ittiyamma v. Sreekantan Nair

Kerala HC6 Nov 2009WP(C)/15306/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order of the Principal Munsiff, Nedumangad which negatived a judgment debtor's objections raised after a second proclamation for sale was settled following a third-party claim. The High Court held the objections could not be entertained as they were not raised earlier and no fresh notice was requisite since the previous proclamation was cancelled.

What the court decided

AI extract

Parukutty Ittiyamma Vs Sreekantan Nair — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 15306 of 2009(O)

¶6

-------------------------OS.378/2000 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT, NEDUMANGAD

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

¶9

PARUKUTTY ITTIYAMMA,W/O.SAISDHARAN NAIR, KARTHIKA BHAVAN, CHITTAZHA, VATTAPARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

BY ADV. MR.K.B.PRADEEP

¶11

RESPONDENT:

¶12

¶13

SREEKANTAN NAIR,S/O.PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, VANAJA NILLAYAM, POTTAYIL, VILAVOORKKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.

¶16

W.P.(C).No.15306 of 2009 - O

¶17

Dated this the 6^th day of November, 2009

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

Petitioner is the judgment debtor in E.P.No.88 of 2006 in O.S.No.378 of 2000 on the file of the Principal Munsiff, Nedumangad. Towards satisfaction of the decree passed in a suit for money, in execution a property having an extent of 6 cents belonging to the petitioner was proceeded for sale. After settlement of proclamation for sale of the 6 cents of property, a third party raised a claim over three cents of that property as having obtained title over that property prior to the suit. The claim raised by the third party after adjudication was allowed, which necessitated settlement of a fresh proclamation for the remaining three cents of property. Later on, proclamation was settled on 6.9.2008. When steps were pending for sale of the property petitioner/judgment debtor moved Ext.P3 application contending after cancellation of the previous proclamation settled no notice was given to the judgment debtor as contemplated under Order XXI Rule 66 of the CPC and she was not heard in the

¶20

W.P.(C).No.15306 of 2009 - O

¶21

¶22

matter for settling a proclamation in respect of the remaining three cents of the property. She also raised a contention though not specifically, but, with particulars that she is entitled to the benefit covered under Section 60(c) of the CPC. The learned Munsiff after considering Ext.P3 application negatived the objections canvassed vide Ext.P4 order. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in this writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶23

I heard the counsel for the petitioner.

¶24

Perusing Ext.P4 order with reference to Ext.P3 objections, I find the objections canvassed by the judgment debtor after settling of the proclamation for the second time cannot be entertained since such objections should have been raised before settlement of the proclamation. No fresh notice was issued for settlement of the fresh proclamation in respect of the three cents of property after allowing the claim petition moved by the third party which has been raised by the judgment debtor cannot be countenanced as no such notice is warranted

¶25

¶26

W.P.(C).No.15306 of 2009 - O

¶27

under the rules. Since the previous proclamation was cancelled in view of the allowing of the claim petition that too with notice to the judgment debtor for drawing up the fresh settlement of proclamation no fresh notice was warranted. Similarly, claim raised by the judgment debtor that she is entitled to protection under Section 60(c) of the CPC, which as indicated earlier was not specifically canvassed, cannot also be appreciated since such claim should have been raised, if at all available, much earlier, and so much so, I find that the learned Munsiff was justified in negativing the objections raised by the judgment debtor. I do not find any impropriety in Ext.P4 order passed by the learned Munsiff.

¶28

Writ petition is closed.

¶29

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE.

¶30

bkn/-

Parukutty Ittiyamma v. Sreekantan Nair

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Parukutty Ittiyamma v. Sreekantan Nair

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Shya Ummal Abdul Azeez Vs a.Ashya Ummal Pathummal

Sunitha Rani Vs Sreekanth S.Nair

Shanmughan Vs Lakshmi and Others

K.a.Viswanathan Vs Thanka

Omanakuttan Vs Ramachandran Pilla & Others

Sheaine.P. Vs Ravi