Petition challenging dismissal of claim petition under Order 21. Court directed petitioners to apply for record of satisfaction and lifting of attachment, reserving disposal for date of such application.
Directed parties to file application for record of satisfaction and lifting of attachment; disposal reserved for date of such filing.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JULY 2016/4TH SRAVANA, 1938
OP(C).No. 1751 of 2016 (O)
E.P.NO.245/07 IN O.S.NO.1726/03 OF MUNSIFF COURT, THRISSUR.
PETITIONER:
GOWRI, AGED 64, W/O.BHASKARAN, PONGANAMOOLA HOUSE, THEKKUMPADAM, PEECHI, THRISSUR.
BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SREEJITH
RESPONDENT:
SAYUJYA KURIES PVT. LTD., ADAM BAZAR, THRISSUR- 680 001.
BY ADV.SRI.SANTHOSH POTHUVAL
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
mbr/
OP(C).No. 1751 of 2016 (O)
APPENDIX
| PETITIONER(S)' -------------- |
EXHIBITS: --------- |
|
|---|---|---|
| EXHIBIT P1. | THE TRUE PETITIONE |
COPY OF THE CLAIM PETITION FILED BY THE R. |
| EXHIBIT P2. | THE TRUE RESPONDEN |
COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED BETWEEN T, PETITIONER, HER HUSBAND AND SON. |
| EXHIBIT P3. | THE TRUE RESPONDEN PETITIONE AGREEMENT |
COPIES OF THE RECEIPTS ISSUED BY THE T AGAINST THE PAYMENT MADE BY R AND FAMILY AS PER MEDIATION . |
| EXHIBIT P4. | THE TRUE | COPY OF COMPOUNDING PETITION. |
| EXHIBIT P5. | THE TRUE CRL.RP NO |
COPY OF COMMON JUDGMENT IN .3782/2010 AND CRL.MC NO.2004/2011. |
| EXHIBIT P6. | THE TRUE |
COPY OF PLAINT IN OS NO.1262/2016. |
| EXHIBIT P7. | THE TRUE |
COPY OF THE OF DISMISSAL. |
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL -----------------------
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
mbr/
K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
O.P.(Civil) No.1751 of 2016
Dated this the 26th day of July, 2016
JUDGMENT
The above petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging Ext.P7 order passed by the second Additional Munsiff's Court, Thrissur under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
litigations between the family members of the petitioner and the respondent chitty company and several litigations were pending between them. Several suits were filed and decrees were obtained and the property of the husband of the petitioner was attached in execution of the decree. In the mean time, all these litigations were referred for mediation and the matter has been settled in the mediation in respect of all the claims and entire amount due to the respondent had been discharged. The petitioner had purchased the property in dispute in E.P.No.245/2007 in O.S.No.1726/2013 from her husband. She earlier filed E.A.No.1476/2015 under Order 21 Rule 55 of the Code of Civil Procedure to record satisfaction and lift the attachment, but that petition was dismissed. Thereafter she filed E.A.No.1635/2015 as claim petition under Order 21 Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure to lift the attachment allowing her claim, but that petition was also dismissed by the court below by Ext.P7 order. According to the petitioner the entire amount due to the respondent
O.P.(Civil) No.1751 of 2016
2
has been discharged and there is nothing to be realised from the judgment debtor and as such the court below was not justified in not honouring the mediation settlement entered into between the parties and close the execution proceeding. Hence this petition.
and Sri. Santhosh Poduval, who entered appearance for the respondent.
With the above direction and observation, the petition is disposed of. Office is directed to communicate this judgment to the concerned court immediately by fax.
Sd/- (K. Ramakrishnan, Judge) //True Copy// P.A. to Judge
ss
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the execution court is justified in not lifting the attachment despite the alleged discharge of the amount due in mediation.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
GOWRI
SAYUJYA KURIES PVT. LTD.
K. Ramakrishnan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
