Allowed

Pramod A.G. v. Kuriakose A.J.

Kerala HC16 Aug 2016OP(C)/1926/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition under Article 227 sought intervention for the speedy disposal of an execution petition. The High Court examined the status report from the Sub Judge, which explained delays due to lack of bidders and pending valuation. The Court accepted the report and directed the Sub Court to dispose of the execution petition expeditiously within five months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Sub Judge, Thiruvalla to dispose of the execution petition as expeditiously as possible, within five months from the date of receipt of this judgment.

Pramod A.G. Vs Kuriakose A.J. — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/25TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

OP(C).No. 1926 of 2016 (O)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

PRAMOD A.G., AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. GOPALA PILLAI, AMBITHAZHATHETHIL HOUSE, PAIPPADU VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.S.JAYAKRISHNAN SRI.S.PARAMESWARA PRASAD

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

KURIAKOSE A.J.,, S/O. THOMAS JOSEPH, THAKADIYIL HOUSE, PALLICKACHIRA P.O., PAIPPADU VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 537.

¶11

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

msv/

¶13

OP(C).No. 1926 of 2016 (O)

¶14

APPENDIX

¶15

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶16

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 06.12.2014 IN OS. NO.78/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, THIRUVALLA

¶17

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE EXECUTION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUB COURT, THIRUVALLA

¶18

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶19

------------------------

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Msv/

K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

======================== O.P.(C) No.1926 of 2016

¶26

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

¶27

Dated this the 16^th day of August, 2016

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

This petition is filed by the petitioner seeking intervention of this court for speedy disposal of E.P No.46 of 2015 in O.S No.78 of 2013 on the file of the Sub Court, Thiruvalla under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶30

It is alleged in the petition, the petitioner filed O.S No.78 of 2013 against the respondent for realization of `40,50,000/-. The matter was settled in Mega Lok Adalath held on 06.12.2014 as per Ext P1 award. Since the respondent did not pay the amount as per the terms of the settlement, petitioner filed Ext P2 execution petition as E.P No.46 of 2015 before the Sub Court, Thiruvalla for realization of the amount. But it is being prolonged without any reason. So the petitioner has no other remedy except approach this Court seeking the following reliefs.

¶31

i) Direct the Executing Court (Sub Court, Thiruvalla) to consider and pass orders on Exhibit P2 Execution Petition within a stipulated time fixed by this Hon'ble Court;

¶32

W.P.(C) No.1926 of 2016

¶33

¶34

ii) Issue such other order or direction as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶35

Considering the nature of relief claimed, this Court felt that this petition can be disposed of after getting a status report from the court below and time required for disposal of the execution petition. Accordingly, a report has been called for and Sub Judge has sent a report which reads as follows:

¶36

“Kind attention is invited to the matter referred. This E.P is to realize Rs.38,74,650/- by sale of attached property. The judgment debtor is ex parte. The E.P is at the stage of setting sale proclamation. Now the Decree Holder filed a petition E.A 27/16 to get the property valued with the aid of an expert/P.W.D Engineer. Case posted to 20.8.2016. I request the Hon'ble Court to give reasonable time to effect court sale, after getting the above expert opinion. There are occasions where sale had to be adjourned for want of bidders or like reasons. Therefore I humbly request that the Hon'ble court to grant 5 months time to complete the proceedings.”

¶37

Heard the counsel for the petitioner. The only grievance

¶38

of the petitioner is that though he filed the execution petition in the year 2015 it is being prolonged unnecessarily, so he wants a direction to be given to court below to expedite disposal of the

¶39

W.P.(C) No.1926 of 2016

¶40

¶41

execution petition. The report of the Sub Judge shows that it was posted for sale thrice and the sale had to be adjourned for want of bidders. Thereafter now the decree holder/ petitioner filed E.A No.27 of 2016 for valuing the property with the help of a P.W.D Engineer and that it is posted to 20.08.2016. So it cannot be said that the delay in disposal of execution petition is due to the fault of the court below. However, considering the report submitted by the court below this Court feels that the petition can be disposed of accepting the report of the Sub Judge, Thiruvalla.

¶42

So this writ petition is disposed of as follows:

¶43

The Sub Jugde, Thiruvalla is directed to dispose of E.P No.46 of 2015 in O.S No.78 of 2013 of that court as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within five months from the date of receipt of this judgment as undertaken in the report.

¶44

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

¶45

K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

vdv/16/08/16

Pramod A.G. v. Kuriakose A.J.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod A.G. v. Kuriakose A.J.

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

P.v.Moideenkutty Haji Vs Mohammed Koya

M/S. Metro Studio Vs Canara Bank

P.C.Rajan Vs K.Devi

Graceamma Thomas Vs Sreedevi

Chathoth Subha Vs Senior Manager

Mary Jain Vs Saji Mon Xavier