Allowed

Nadukkandiyil Moideen v. Kedanhoth Muhammed

Kerala HC12 Nov 2012OP(C)/2668/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed an execution application to correct a misdescription of property in a claim petition, setting aside the lower court's rejection. Relief granted is subject to condition of paying costs of Rs.10,000 to first respondent's counsel within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; execution application allowed subject to payment of Rs.10,000 costs to first respondent's counsel within three weeks.

Nadukkandiyil Moideen Vs Kedanhoth Muhammed — 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

MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/21ST KARTHIKA 1934

¶5

OP(C).No. 2668 of 2012 (O)

¶6

E.A.NO.128/2012 IN E.P.NO.95/2010 IN OS.NO.132/1999 of MUNSIFF COURT, VADAKARA

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

1. NADUKKANDIYIL MOIDEEN, S/O.MAMMAD, VATAKARA AMSOM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK.

¶9

2. MANIYOOR RAJAN, S/O.ANDI,AGED 56 YEARS, VATAKARA AMSOM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. KEDANHOTH MUHAMMED, S/O.KUNHITHARUVAYI HAJI, ERAMALA AMSOM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK.PIN-673 101

¶13

2. KUNHAMI, W/O.UMMER,

¶14

KAKKUZHIYIL HOUSE, VATAKARA AMSOM DESOM,

¶15

VATAKARA TALUK.PIN-673 101

¶16

3. KUNHIMARIYAM, D/O.UMMER,

¶17

KAKKUZHIYIL HOUSE, VATAKARA AMSOM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK.PIN-673 101

¶18

4. ABDUL SALAM, S/O.UMMER,

¶19

KAKKUZHIYIL HOUSE, VATAKARA AMSOM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK.PIN-673 101

¶20

5. SUHARA, D/O.UMMER, KAKKUZHIYIL HOUSE, VATAKARA AMSOM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK.PIN-673 101

¶21

6. AYISHA, D/O.UMMER,

¶22

KAKKUZHIYIL HOUSE, VATAKARA AMSOM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK.PIN-673 101

¶23

7. RAMLA, D/O.UMMER,

¶24

KAKKUZHIYIL HOUSE, VATAKARA AMSOM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK.PIN-673 101

Sts

2/-

-2-

OP(C)NO.2668/2012

¶29

8. USMAN, S/O.UMMER, KAKKUZHIYIL HOUSE, VATAKARA AMSOM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK.PIN-673 101

¶30

9. SHAREEFA, D/O.UMMER, KAKKUZHIYIL HOUSE, VATAKARA AMSOM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK.PIN-673 101

¶31

10. ARIFA, D/O.UMMER 43 YEARS,

¶32

KAKKUZHIYIL HOUSE, VATAKARA AMSOM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK.PIN-673 101

¶33

11. MUHAMMAD, S/O.UMMER,

¶34

KAKKUZHIYIL HOUSE, VATAKARA AMSOM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK.PIN-673 101

¶35

12. FAISAL, S/O.UMMER, KAKKUZHIYIL HOUSE, VATAKARA AMSOM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK.PIN-673 101

¶36

R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.A.AUGUSTINE(AREEKATTEL)

¶37

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶38

sts

¶39

OP(C)NO.2668/2012

¶40

APPENDIX

¶41

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶42

P1 COPY OF THE CLAIM PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS

¶43

P2 COPY OF THE AMENDMENT PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS IN E.A.149/2011

¶44

P3 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3/8/12 OF MUNSIFF COURT, VATAKARA IN E.A.128/12

¶45

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO.JUDGE

sts

V.CHITAMBARESH,J.

¶50

= = = = = = = = = = =

¶51

O.P.(C) No. 2668 of 2012

¶52

= = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = Dated this the 12^th day of November, 2012

¶53

J U D G M E N T

¶54

An execution application filed to amend the schedule of a claim petition stands rejected by the court below by the order impugned. The purpose of the amendment is only to correct the misdescription of the property in the schedule of the claim petition. The extent of the property after amendment in fact gets reduced than the originally mentioned extent. The petitioner has stated that he did not notice the mistake notwithstanding the exercise of diligence earlier.

¶55

I am inclined to allow the application for amendment filed to correct the misdescription. The question whether the amended relief could be granted or not is altogether a different question. That is a matter to be decided by the execution court at the time of final disposal. The respondents can file an additional counter and lead further evidence in the claim petition.

¶56

I set aside the impugned order and allow E.A No.128/2008 in E.P No.95/2010 in O.S No.132/1999 on the file of

¶57

O.P.(C) No. 2668 of 2012 2

¶58

the Court of the Munsiff of Vadakara. This is subject to the condition that the petitioners pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as costs to the Counsel for the first respondent within a period of three weeks from today. The order impugned will remain intact in case the petitioners commit default in the payment of costs within the time fixed. The court below shall expedite the proceedings under the circumstances obtained. Every endeavour shall be made to dispose of the claim petition finally within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶59

The Original Petition (Civil) is disposed of.

¶60

V.CHITAMBARESH. JUDGE

¶61

smm

¶62

O.P.(C) No. 2668 of 2012 3

Nadukkandiyil Moideen v. Kedanhoth Muhammed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nadukkandiyil Moideen v. Kedanhoth Muhammed

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

Xavier M.Lukose Vs Joseph M.Lukose

Dr.Abdul Kareem Vs K.N.Padmanabha Kurup

K.R. Madhu Vs Johnson

Raveendran Vs Gopakumar

Rosy Antony Vs Bhasi K Nair

Sreeni Kumar Vs Ashalatha@ Manku