Dismissed

Prabhavathi v. Reji

Kerala HC24 Jun 2009WP(C)/6195/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging execution proceedings. The court noted the decree was delivered via report from Family Court. Writ jurisdiction under Article 227 was not invoked as dispute lies with the court below regarding delivery. Pending applications for setting aside decree to be disposed by court below.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. No directions regarding expeditious disposal of pending applications. Call for report from Family Court done previously.

Prabhavathi Vs Reji — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2009 / 3RD ASHADHA 1931

¶4

WP(C).No. 6195 of 2009(R)

¶5

------------------------OP.1218/2005 of FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD ....................

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

¶8

PRABHAVATHI, W/O.LATE DIVAKARAN, AGED 64 KAILAS BHAVAN, NELLIMOODU, PONGANADU, KILIMANOOR.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANILAL

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

¶12

RAJI, D/O.RAJAN,KATTIL HOUSE, NANDAIVANAM DESOM, NAGAROOR HOUSE, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK.

¶13

KRISHNA(MINOR)D/O.SUNIL,KATTIL HOUSE, NANDAIVANAM DESOM, NAGAROOR VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK.

¶14

SUNIL, S/O.DIVAKARAN,KAILAS BHAVAN, NELLIMOODU, PNOGANADU, KILIMANOOR.

¶15

ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.RAJAN VELLOTH FOR R1 & 2 SRI.SAIJO HASSAN FOR R1 & 2 SRI.SAIJO HASSAN FOR R1 & 2 SRI.A.S.SABU FOR R1 & 2 SRI.RAFEEK. V.K. FOR R1 & 2 SRI.PRATHAP PILLAI FOR R1 & 2

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.

¶18

W.P(C) No.6195 of 2009

¶19

Dated this the 24^th day of June, 2009

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

BASANT, J.

¶22

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the execution proceedings initiated against her for the execution of a decree passed by the family court. This petition was filed on 25/5/2009. Interim orders were granted by the Bench which admitted the Writ Petition on 26/2/2009. The same was extended thereafter.

¶23

At this juncture, the respondent has entered appearance to contend that the decree had already been executed prior to the communication of the order of stay on 26/2/2009. In view of the dispute about the facts between the learned counsel, a report of the learned Judge was called for.

¶24

The report dated 18/6/2009 received from the family court clearly shows that delivery was effected on 24.02.2009 and the same was confirmed on 26.02.2009.

¶25

We do not, in these circumstances, find any merit in the prayer for invocation of the extraordinary constitutional

¶26

W.P(C) No.6195 of 2009

¶27

¶28

jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 227. The petitioner must seek appropriate relief from the court below if she has any grievance against the recording of delivery by the court below.

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits before us that I.A.No.601 of 2009 to set aside the exparte decree against her and I.A.No.602 of 2009 to condone the delay in filing the same are pending before the court below. The learned counsel prays that there may be a direction for expeditious disposal of the said I.As.

¶30

Needless to say, those I.As have got to be disposed of in accordance with law and expeditiously. We have no reason to assume that the court below shall not do the same. The same has to be done by the court below.

¶31

This Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed with the

¶32

above observations.

¶33

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

¶34

(M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE)

¶35

rtr/-

¶36

W.P(C) No.6195 of 2009

¶37

¶38

R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.

¶39

W.P(C) No.6195 of 2009

¶40

W.P(C) No.6195 of 2009

¶41

¶42

Dated this the 9^th day of June, 2009

¶43

ORDER

¶44

BASANT, J.

¶45

Call for a report from the Family Court. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that even prior to the order dated 26.02.2009 delivery has already been effected with the petitioner on the party array as a judgment debtor. The report of the learned Family Court must reach this Court by 22.06.2009.

¶46

Call on 22.06.09. In such report, the Family Court

¶47

shall furnish to this Court details of the sequence of events.

¶48

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

¶49

(M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE)

¶50

rtr/-

Prabhavathi v. Reji

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabhavathi v. Reji

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

Unnikrishna Marar Vs Rugmini Amma

John Manjooran Vs State of Kerala

Sudheeshkumar Vs State of Kerala and Others

S.R.Suresh Babu Vs Beena Babu

S.R.Suresh Babu Vs Beena

S.R.Suresh Babu Vs Beena