Allowed

T.P.Pappachan v. State Bank of Travancore

Kerala HC30 Oct 2012CRP/158/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the Civil Revision Petition, upholding the maintenance of an execution petition filed within the limitation period. The decree holder was restricted to the reduced amount awarded by the Lok Adalath. An installment facility for the judgment debtor was granted subject to the condition of timely compliance.

What did the court decide?

Execution petition deemed maintainable; debt quantified at Rs. 3,32,000 + 12% interest; repayment via 12 equal monthly installments permitted provided property is not sold if default is avoided.

T.P.Pappachan Vs State Bank of Travancore — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/8TH KARTHIKA 1934

¶5

CRP.No. 158 of 2012 ()

¶6

E.P.NO.3/2011 OF SUB COURT, PERUMBAVOOR IN

¶7

OS.524/1994 of THE SUB COURT,N.PARUR.

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER/JUDGMENT DEBTOR NO.1/DEFENDANT.NO.1:

¶9

T.P.PAPPACHAN,

¶10

S/O PAULOSE, THOPPILAN HOUSE, AIMURY KARA, KOOVAPPADY VILLAGE.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.MATHEW SKARIA SRI.T.K.KOSHY

¶12

RESPONDENT/DECREE HOLDER/PLAINTIFF:

¶13

STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, PERUMBAVOOR BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, PERUMBAVOOR BRANCH.

¶14

PIN - 683 542.

¶15

BY ADV.SRI.SATHISH NINAN

¶16

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

V.CHITAMBARESH, J.

¶19

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

¶20

C.R.P No.158 of 2012

¶21

-----------------------------------Dated this the 30^th day of October, 2012

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The petitioner contended that E.P No.3/2011 is filed well beyond the period of twelve years from the date of decree and hence barred by limitation under Section 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The petitioner contended that only the period from the date of award (11-11-2000) till the date of first instalment (31-1-2001) can at best be excluded under Section 15 of the Limitation Act. The petitioner lastly contended that the respondent can at any rate realize only the amount trimmed by the award and not the amount due under the decree in the suit.

¶24

Article 136 of the Limitation Act is specific that the period of twelve years would start from the date of the subsequent order or from the date on which the default is committed in making the payment. E.P No.3/2011 has been filed on 3-1-2011 which is within twelve years from 11-11-2000 and at any rate within twelve years from 31-1-2001. The award of the Lok Adalath can as well be treated as a subsequent order in

¶25

C.R.P No.158 of 2012

¶26

¶27

terms of Article 136 of the Limitation Act. Therefore it can safely be concluded that E.P No.3/2011 is filed in time within the period of twelve years and hence maintainable.

¶28

3. Even otherwise the dismissal of E.A.No.606/2009 filed for revival of E.P.No.147/1998 was for statistical purpose only. E.P.No.3/2011 can only be treated as continuation of E.P.No.147/1998. This is particularly so when the order dismissing E.A.No.606/2009 on 15.10.2009 permits a fresh execution petition to be filed by the respondent. A reference in this connection to the decisions in Pentapati China Venkanna and others V. Pentapati Bangararaju and others (AIR 1964 SC 1454) and Ramachandra Reddyar V. Texo International (2011(2) KLT 455) are apposite. E.P.No.3/11 if treated to be a continuation of E.P.147/1998 has been filed within the period of 12 years permitted under law.

¶29

The petitioner has yet another grievance in that the respondent is attempting to realize the amount due under the decree in the suit. This is done notwithstanding the award whereunder the amount due to the respondent has been scaled

¶30

C.R.P No.158 of 2012

¶31

¶32

down to Rs.3,32,000/- with interest. I do find force in this submission since the respondent is itself banking on the award only to get over the bar of limitation. The respondent therefore cannot be permitted to claim any amount other than what is permitted under the award by the Lok Adalath. There is of course some ambiguity as regards the rate of interest applicable on the sum of Rs.3,32,000/- found due under the award. The award merely insists on Prime Lending Rate (PLR) without specifying with the exact rate of interest applicable. The rate of interest @ 12%per annum on the amount so found due would be just and equitable under the circumstances. I hold that the respondent is only entitled to the sum of Rs.3,32,000/- with interest thereon at 12% per annum from 11.11.2000 till the date of realization.

¶33

I permit the petitioner to repay the award amount so found due in 12 equal monthly instalments starting from 01.12.2012. The property proclaimed shall not be sold in execution in case the petitioner complies with the direction in time. The petitioner will lose the benefit of this instalment

¶34

C.R.P No.158 of 2012

¶35

¶36

facility if any one instalment is defaulted. The respondent is then entitled to surge ahead with the execution proceedings by sale of the property attached. The impugned order of the court below in E.P.No.3/2011 in O.S.No.524/1994 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Perumbavoor is modified accordingly.

¶37

Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

V.CHITAMBARESH,JUDGE

¶40

//TRUE COPY//

¶41

P.A TO JUDGE

¶42