Allowed

Karmily v. Suresh Babu

Kerala HC23 Jun 2011OP(C)/614/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Original Petition C No. 614 of 2011, the Hon'ble Court allowed the petition and directed the executing Sub Court to consider the petitioner's application for restoration of a default-dismissed claim petition and condonation of delay expeditiously before the execution sale, without expressing any view on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the executing court to consider the application for restoration and condonation of delay expeditiously before the execution sale.

Karmily Vs Suresh Babu — 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 23RD JUNE 2011 / 2ND ASHADHA 1933

¶5

OP(C).No. 614 of 2011(O)

¶6

-----------------------OS.1067/2007 of PRL.M.C.,ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER

¶8

¶9

KARMILY,AGED 64,W/O.LATE XAVIER, PANEKKATT HOUSE,VYTTILA DESOM,POONITHURA VILLAGE KANAYANNOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.SAJI VARGHESE KAKKATTUMATTATHIL

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

¶13

SURESH BABU, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, PANEKKAPADATH HOUSE,M.A.BALAKRISHNAN ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682018

¶14

ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR FOR R1

¶15

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

OP(C).No. 614 of 2011(O)

¶17

PETITIONER'S EXTS:

¶18

EXT.P1: COPY OF SALE DEED NO.1183/97 OF SRO, MARADU EXT.P2: COPY OF JUDGMENT IN OS NO.1067/07 OF MC, ERNAKULAM EXT.P3: COPY OF DECREE IN OS NO.1067/07 OF MC, ERNAKULAM

¶19

EXT.P4: COPY OF COMMISSION REPORT IN OS NO.1067/07 OF MC, ERNAKULAM

¶20

EXT.P5: COPY OF PETITION NUMBERED AS EA NO.348/09 IN OS NO.571/99 OF PRL.SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM

¶21

EXT.P6: COPY OF PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN EXT.P5 CASE.

¶22

RESPONDENT'S EXTS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

TRANSPOSE

P.A.TO JUDGE

K.T.SANKARAN, J .

¶27

O.P(C)No.614 OF 2011 --------------------------------Dated this the 23^rd day of June, 2011

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

The petitioner filed a claim petition in E.P.No.373 of 2003 in O.S.No.571 of 1999 on the file of the Prl.Sub Court, Ernakulam. The Executing Court dismissed the claim petition for default. The petitioner filed E.A.No.287 of 2011 for restoration of the claim petition. The only relief which is pressed now is to issue a direction to the Court below to consider the application for restoration expeditiously before the sale is effected.

¶30

The petitioner has filed a claim petition under Order XXI Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That application is to be disposed on the merits before the execution sale. However, the application under Order XXI Rule 58 was dismissed for default. The petitioner has filed an application for restoration of that application.

¶31

In these circumstances, it is only proper to dispose of the application for restoration expeditiously.

¶32

¶33

Accordingly, the Original Petition is allowed. The Prl.Sub Court, Ernakulam shall consider and dispose of the application for restoration and the application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, before the execution sale. It is made clear that no view is expressed on the merits of the applications.

¶34

K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE .

¶35

cms

Karmily v. Suresh Babu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karmily v. Suresh Babu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashraf Vs State Rep.by Public Prosecutor

Shihab Kadavath and Another Vs State of Kerala

Shihab Kadavath and Another Vs State of Kerala

Lithin Prakash & Others Vs State of Kerala

C.G.Saseendran Vs Mathew Exal,Sub Inspector,Kottayam

P.Bhaskaran Vs St. Mary'S Cathedral Bascilica, Ekm.