Disposed

Shiboo George v. M/S. Santhimadam Builders and Developers

Kerala HC8 Aug 2016OP(C)/1831/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an O.P.(C) under Article 226, the petitioners sought intervention for the speedy disposal of an E.A. pending in an execution petition. The court observed that the lower court had expressed willingness to dispose of the matter within a specific timeframe and directed communication of this judgment accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with direction to communicate judgment to the lower court; case adjourned in substance to lower court.

Shiboo George Vs M/S. Santhimadam Builders and… — 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

MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/17TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

OP(C).No. 1831 of 2016 (O)

¶6

O.S.NO.12/2013 OF ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, NORTH PARAVUR.

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

1. SHIBOO GEORGE, S/O K.K.GEORGE, AGED 48, PODIMATTATHIL HOUSE, MUTTAMBALAM P.O, KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 004, PRESENTLY WORKING MIDDLE EAST DEVELOPMENT COMPANY (MEDCO) P.O BOX 2680, JEDDAH 21461, SOUDI ARABIA DULY REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, BINDU MARIYAM SHIBOO.

¶9

2. MRS. BINDU MARIYAM SHIBOO, AGED 40, W/O MR.SHIBOO GEORGE, P ODIMATTATHIL HOUSE, MUTTAMBALAM P.O, KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 004.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.VINCENT RAPHAEL

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. M/S.SANTHIMADAM BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT SOUTH NALUVAZHY, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 556, KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, DR.V.N.RADHAKRISHNAN.

¶13

2. DR.V.N.RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 58, S/O.V.C.NARAYANAN, RESIDING AT SANTHIMADOM, NORTH PARAVUR, NANTHYATTUKUNNAM, PARAVUR VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 556.

¶14

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

mbr/

¶16

OP(C).No. 1831 of 2016 (O)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶19

EXHIBIT	P1 :	TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23-09-2014 IN O.S NO 12/2013 ON THE FILES OF ADDL. SUB COURT, NORTH PARAVUR.
EXHIBIT	P2 :	TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE EXECUTION PETITION NO 294/2014 IN O.S NO 12/2013 ON THE FILES OF ADDL. SUB COURT, NORTH PARAVUR.
EXHIBIT	P3 :	TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE VALUATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM THE KOTTUVALLY VILLAGE.
EXHIBIT	P4 :	TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY SRO NORTH PARAVUR PERTAINING TO THE PROPERTY.
EXHIBIT	P5 :	TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE B DIARY PROCEEDINGS IN E.P NO 294/2014 IN O.S NO 12/2013 OBTAINED FROM THE COURT BELOW.
EXHIBIT	P6 :	TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REVEIW PETITION IN E.A NO 184/2016 DATED 29-02-2016.
EXHIBIT	P7 :	TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE DRAST SALE PROCLAMATIONS SCHEDULE FILED IN THE EXECUTION PETITION.
ADDL.EX	T.P8:	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMO DATED 30.7.2016 FILED BEFORE THE HON’BLE ADDL. SUBORDINATE JUDGE’S COURT NORTH PARAVUR IN E.A.NO.184/2016 IN E.P.NO.294/2014.
RESPOND -------	ENT(S)' -------	EXHIBITS: NIL ---------
		//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

===================

O.P.(C). No.1831of 2016

¶25

=======================

¶26

Dated this the 8^th day of August, 2016

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

This is an application filed by the petitioners seeking intervention of this Court for disposal of E.A. No.184 of 2016 pending before the Additional Sub Court, North Paravur under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶29

It is alleged in the petition that petitioners obtained a decree in O.S. No.12 of 2013 against the respondents for recovery of amount and filed E.P. No.294 of 2014 for attachment and sale of certain items of properties shown as Ext.P7. Those properties were attached and petitioner filed draft sale proclamation as well as Ext.P7. The court below had decided to proceed with the sale of item No.9 in Ext.P7 first. In order to review that order, the petitioners filed E.A. No.184 of 2016. But that is not being disposed of by the court below. Further notice has been ordered to the parties and posted to 26.08.2016 for return of notice.

¶30

O.P.(C). No.1831of 2016 -2-

¶31

The grievance of the petitioners is that notice can be served on the counsel appearing as well. So he wants the intervention of this Court for speedy disposal of these applications.

¶32

Considering the nature of relief claimed, this Court called for a report from the Additional Sub Court, North Paravur, where the execution petition is pending regarding the present stage and time required for disposal and the Additional Sub Judge has sent a report which reads as follows:-

¶33

“EA 184/16 was filed by the counsel for Decree Holder on 8.3.2016 and this court ordered to issue notice to the respondents and posted to 11.4.2016. On 11.4.2016 it was found that the notice was returned as not served and the petitioner is again ordered to issue notice by Registered Post and EA was posted to 15.6.2016. On 15.6.2016 it was found that steps as ordered on 11.4.2016 was not taken. Hence the petitioner was again directed to take steps and EA was posted to 30.7.2016. On 30.7.2016 it was found that the notice was not returned. Hence the EA was posted to 26.8.2016 for Return of notice.

¶34

I may submit that for the disposal of the EA, time for three weeks is required from the date of appearance of the respondent or one week, if the respondent does not turn up inspite of service of notice.”

¶35

The grievance of the petitioners is that though

¶36

O.P.(C). No.1831of 2016 -3-

¶37

they had sought sale of 9 item of properties, the court below had chosen to post sale of only item No.9 which is having lessor value not sufficient to discharge the liability of the petitioner. I am not going to those aspects in this petition. As it is for that court to consider and pass appropriate orders when considering E.A. No.184 of 2016 which the petitioners has filed for review the order of sale of one of the item alone.

¶38

Considering the fact that court below expressed its willingness to dispose of the application within a particular time, this Court feels that report of the Sub Judge which can be accepted and the petition can be disposed accordingly. So a report of the Additional Sub Judge North Paravur dated 01.08.2015, whereby the Sub Judge had undertaken to dispose of the E.A. within three weeks from the date of appearance of the respondents or one week if the respondent did not turn up, in spite of service of notice to respondents. If the respondents entered appearance in the execution proceedings and if they are prepared to enter appearance in the E.A. also, then that can be considered by

¶39

O.P.(C). No.1831of 2016 -4-

¶40

the court as appearance of the party and then dispose of the

¶41

case within three weeks from such appearance.

¶42

With the above directions and observations the petition

¶43

is disposed of.

¶44

Office is directed to communicate this judgment to the court below at the earliest.

¶45

Sd/K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶46

SKV

Shiboo George v. M/S. Santhimadam Builders and Developers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiboo George v. M/S. Santhimadam Builders and Developers

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

Appukkuttan Vs Sheeba

Jayambararaj Paduva Vs State Bank of Travancore

V.P.Vasu Vs Kandacheri Sarojini

Proper Products Private Limited Vs S.Mohandas

Muhammed Ashiq Vs Shaboom Farsana

Afsal a Vs Muhammedkutty