Dismissed

A.M.Sudheer v. T.T.K.Health Care Ltd,Chennai

Kerala HC3 Feb 2011OP(C)/472/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an original petition seeking a stay on execution proceedings to allow the judgment-debtor to set aside an ex parte decree. The court held that executing court proceedings cannot be stayed for filing such applications.

What did the court decide?

A direction to the Subordinate Judge not to proceed with the sale and stay of execution proceedings was refused.

A.M.Sudheer Vs T.T.K.Health Care Ltd,Chennai — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2011 / 14TH MAGHA 1932

¶5

OP(C).No. 472 of 2011(O)

¶6

------------------------

¶7

(E.P.NO.97/2010 IN O.S.NO.82/2006 OF SUB COURT-II, THRISSUR)

¶8

PETITIONER

¶9

--------------------

¶10

A.M.SUDHEER, S/O.A.R.MADHAVAN, AMMANATH HOUSE, THANGALLOOR P.O. THRISSUR - 680 581.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.C.HARIKUMAR

¶12

RESPONDENT:

¶13

---------------------

¶14

T.T.K.HEALTH CARE LTD., CHENNAI, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMERCIAL MANAGER, K.V.P.DAMODARAN, 57/3549, MANJU TOWERS, ERNAKULAM - 682 011.

¶15

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

K.T.SANKARAN, J .

¶17

O.P(C).No.472 OF 2011
------------------------------

¶18

Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2011

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The petitioner is the judgment debtor in E.P.No.97 of
2010 on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge of
Thrissur. The decree was granted in favour of the respondent
in a suit instituted by him before the City Civil Court,
Madras. The decree was transferred to Thrissur for execution.
E.P.No.381 of 2008 was filed earlier for realisation of the
decree debt by arrest and detention of the judgment debtor in
civil prison. The petitioner herein pleaded no means. It is
stated that E.P.No.381 of 2008 was dismissed. Later, the
present Execution Petition, namely, E.P.97 of 2010 was filed

¶21

for realisation of the decree debt by attachment and sale of
the immovable property belonging to the petitioner/judgment

¶22

debtor. Notice under Rule 66 of Order XXI of the Code of
Civil Procedure was issued to the petitioner and the case
stands posted to 12.2.2011 for settlement of proclamation.

¶23

2. At this juncture, the petitioner has filed this

¶24

O.P(C).No.472 OF 2011 2

¶25

Original Petition for the following reliefs:

¶26

“i) a direction to the Hon'ble Subordinate Judges Court-II, Thrissur not to proceed with the sale of the property of the petitioner for enforcement of the ex parte decree in O.S.82 of 2006 of the City Civil Court, Chennai till the petitioner is given the opportunity to contest the ex parte decree.

¶27

ii) such other relief that the court may grant in the interest of justice.”

¶28

3. The reliefs prayed for in the Original Petition
cannot be granted. The Executing Court has not passed any
order except issuing notice to the petitioner under Rule
66 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure. The

¶29

prayer made by the petitioner indicates that he wants to
file an application to set aside the ex parte decree.
For that purpose, the Execution Proceedings cannot be
stayed.

¶30

For the aforesaid reasons, the Original Petition is
dismissed.

¶31

K.T.SANKARAN,
JUDGE.

¶32

cms

A.M.Sudheer v. T.T.K.Health Care Ltd,Chennai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.M.Sudheer v. T.T.K.Health Care Ltd,Chennai

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

Saidalikutty Vs the Taluk Land Board Tirur

Gracy Xavier Vs St.Mary Rubbers

Balakuttan Pillai Vs Manu Parthan

Vijin Vs State of Kerala

Koovummal Kunhipathu Vs Mukkathkellandy Asya Hajjumma

Revi Vs Mukattukara Catholic Company Limited