Disposed

Jose v. Bindhu Muraleedharan

Kerala HC29 Jul 2016OP(C)/1376/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of a court-ordered sale and stay of execution proceedings under Article 227. Supreme Court held that since the sale had not been formally set aside and confirmation did not arise, the petition was disposed of leaving right to challenge pending.

What did the court decide?

Disposed of leaving open the right of the petitioner to challenge the sale if conducted in accordance with law.

Jose Vs Bindhu Muraleedharan — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JULY 2016/7TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

OP(C).No. 1376 of 2014 (O)

¶6

E.P.NO.74/2013 IN O.S.NO.615/2010 OF THE SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/JUDGMENT DEBTOR NO.2, DEFENDANT NO.2:

¶8

JOSE, AGED 50 YEARS,

¶9

S/O. GEORGE, RESIDING AT NETTIKADAN HOUSE, MELLOOR P.O, DESOM, SANTHIPURAM, THRISSUR, PIN- 680 311.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.T.JEEJAN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/DECREE HOLDER, JUDGMENT DEBTOR NO.1 :

¶12

1. BINDHU MURALEEDHARAN, AGED 38 YEARS, W/O.MURALEEDHARAN, KAVALLOOR, RAMPARMBIL HOUSE, PADIYOOR VILLAGE AND DESOM, MUKUNDHAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 307.

¶13

2. VIDHYASAGAR, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNAN, NEDUMURI HOUSE, CHALAKUDI WEST VILLAGE, MUKUNDHAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 307.

¶14

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Msd.

¶16

OP(C).No. 1376 of 2014 (O)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶19

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 10-08-2012.

¶20

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE SALE NOTICE

¶21

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATES ISSUED FROM ST. JAMES HOSPITAL, CHALAKUDY.

¶22

EXHIBIT P4: THE ORIGINAL OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY DR. THOMAS JOHN, CARDIOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF CARDIOLOGY, ST.JAMES HOSPITAL, CHALAKUDY.

¶23

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

¶29

O.P. (C) No.1376 of 2014

¶30

Dated this the 29^th day of July, 2016

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

This petition is filed by the petitioner, who is one of the judgment debtors in E.P.No.74/2013 in O.S.No.615/2010 on the file of the Sub Court, Irinjalakuda for quashing the order of sale made by the court below without hearing them and also seeking interim order of stay of further proceedings in E.P.No.74/2013 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶33

This court admitted the petition and ordered urgent notice and by an interim order further proceedings regarding confirmation of the sale was stayed on condition of the petitioner depositing ₹10,00,000/- on or before 10.07.2014. When the case came up for hearing today along with O.P.(C)NO.1802/2016, there was no representation for the petitioner. Further there was no steps taken in this case as well, though notice was ordered on 19.06.2014. O.P.(C) No.1802/20116 was filed by the decree holder, challenging the order passed by the Execution Court in the application filed by the judgment debtors to set aside the sale in which an application for issue of a commission has been made to ascertain the market value and the execution court has allowed that application, that is being challenged by the petitioner in O.P.(C)No.1802/2016.

¶34

O.P. (C) No.1376 of 2014

¶35

¶36

The counsel for the decree holder in that case submitted that the condition made by this court has not been complied with. Further sale has been conducted and petition to set aside the same is now pending.

¶37

So without disposing the petition to set aside the sale, the question of confirmation does not arise. So under such circumstances, this petition can be disposed of leaving open the right of the petitioner to challenge the sale if any conducted in accordance with law in the application filed by him to set aside the same.

¶38

With the above direction and observation, this original petition is disposed of.

¶39

Sd/- (K. Ramakrishnan, Judge)

¶40

//True Copy//

¶41

P.A. to Judge

¶42

Jose v. Bindhu Muraleedharan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jose v. Bindhu Muraleedharan

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

K.V. Josemon Vs Joshymon V.T.

Sheeba Raj Vs Baby Pathrose

Dr. Alexander Thomas Vs Mathew Alexander

The Karnataka Bank Ltd. Vs Sunanda

Asha Mukundan Vs Anitha

Abraham Thomas Vs Kuriakose Mar Severious Arch Bishop and Chief Metropolitian of the Knanaya Arach Diocese in Charge