Disposed

Bharathi Karthikeyan v. M.I Sheeja Mol

Kerala HC22 Oct 2013OP (RC)/3304/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order adjudicated an execution petition by the judgment debtor seeking a stay on delivery of schedule property pending pendency of appeal. The High Court directed the Appellate Authority to condone delay on payment of costs and dispose of the appeal on merits.

What did the court decide?

Stay on delivery of scheduled building pending appeal; direction to condone delay in appeal subject to payment of costs; appeal to be disposed on merits within two months.

Bharathi Karthikeyan Vs M.I Sheeja Mol — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/30TH ASWINA, 1935

¶5

OP (RC).No. 3304 of 2013 (O)

¶6

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:

¶7

¶8

BHARATHI KARTHIKEYAN, AGED 54 YEARS W/O.KARTHIKEYAN, ASWATHY BHAVAN, NADUMTHOTTUNGAL LANE VENNALA.P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682028.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.SANTHOSH G. PRABHU SRI.S.KANNAN SRI.K.V.ARUN KUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: -------------------------

¶11

M.I SHEEJA MOL,, AGED 52 YEARS D/O.LATE M.V.IBRAHIMKUTTY, NOORJAHAN MANZIL ERNAKULAM NORTH TOWN RAILWAY STATION ROAD KOCHI-682018, NOW RESIDING AT 34/620, FATHIMA CIVIL STATION, CALICUT-673020.

¶12

M.I.JEEJA BAI,, AGED 63 YEARS D/O.LATE M.V.IBRAHIMKUTTY, NOORJAHAN MANZIL ERNAKULAM NORTH TOWN RAILWAY STATION ROAD KOCHI-682018, NOW RESIDING AT MULLASSERIMADOM DISTRICT COURT WARD, THATHAMPPALLY.P.O ALAPPUZHA-688013. R1,R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.P.MOHAMMED NIYAZ R1,R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MUHAMMAD FAZIL

¶13

THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

OP (RC).No. 3304 of 2013 (O)

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶17

EXT.P1 A TRUE COPY OF E.A.360/2013 IN E.P.148/2013 IN R.C.P.17/2009 FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT,ERNAKULAM.

¶18

EXT.P2 A TRUE TYPE WRITTEN COPY OF THE ORDER DATRD 24-9-2013 OF THE HON'BLE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT,ERNAKULAM.

¶19

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

\TRUE COPY//

P.A to Judge

T.R. Ramachandran Nair & B.Kemal Pasha, JJ.

¶25

O.P.(RC) No.3304/2013

¶26

Dated this the 22^nd day of October, 2013 J U D G M E N T

¶27

Ramachandran Nair, J.

¶28

The petitioner herein is a Judgment Debtor in E.P.No.148/2013 in R.C.P.No.17/2009 on the file of the Principal Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam. It is pointed out in the original petition that R.C.A.No.43/2013 filed by the petitioner is pending wherein an application for condoning delay is yet to be disposed of by the Appellate Authority and it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the same is posted to 30/10/2013 for hearing on the delay petition.

¶29

Since the execution proceedings are being expedited during the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner seeks for an appropriate direction mainly to keep in abeyance the delivery of the petition schedule building.

¶30

The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner is only trying to delay the execution of the order in favour of the

¶31

O.P.(RC).No..3304/2013

¶32

:2:-

¶33

respondents. It is also submitted that the respondents have no objection in condoning the delay in filing the appeal on such terms as fixed by this Court. The O.P.(RC) is therefore disposed of with the following directions:

¶34

The Appellate Authority will condone the delay in the filing the appeal viz.R.C.A.No.43/2013 on condition that the petitioner will pay to the respondents an amount of ₹5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as costs within a period of 15 days.

¶35

Since the learned counsel for the respondents prayed that the Appellate Authority may be directed to dispose of the appeal on merits, we direct the Appellate Authority to take the appeal on the file and dispose of the same on merits after hearing the parties within two months thereafter. Till the appeal is disposed of, the execution proceedings will be kept in abeyance.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge)

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

(B.Kemal Pasha, Judge)

¶40

ms/-

Bharathi Karthikeyan v. M.I Sheeja Mol

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharathi Karthikeyan v. M.I Sheeja Mol

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

Sri.B.Kabeerdas Vs Secretary Travancore Devaswom Board

Travancore Devaswom Board Vs Deputy Director

The Secretary, Travancore Devaswom Board Vs ..

K.P.Rajan Vs K.P.Muhammed

Chellamma Vs R.Janardhanan Pillai

Chirammal Hamza Vs Pakarakath Adeep