Disposed

Sunny Mathew v. Annamma

Kerala HC26 Aug 2016OP(C)/2025/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgmentórias an original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. The court directed the subordinate court to expedite disposal of a stay application in ongoing execution proceedings within one month, finding it a duty to decide such petitions before proceeding further.

What did the court decide?

Directed Munsiff, Perumbavoor to dispose of E.A.No.137/2016 in E.P.No.45/2013 within one month and keep execution proceedings in abeyance.

Sunny Mathew Vs Annamma — 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 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/4TH BHADRA, 1938

¶5

OP(C).No. 2025 of 2016 (O)

¶6

--------------------------(EP.NO.45/2013 IN OS.NO.272/95 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, PERUMBAVOOR)

¶7

PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN E.A.NO.137/16 IN EP.NO.45/13 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, PERUMBAVOOR :

¶8

SUNNY MATHEW, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.MATHEW, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S.DUAL FOODS AND BEVERAGES(P) LTD, PULLUVAZHY P.O, PERUMBAVOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS & DECREE HOLDER & JUDGMENT DEBTORS IN EP.NO.45/13 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, PERUMBAVOOR :

¶11

1. ANNAMMA, W/O.LATE KURIACHAN, AGED 80 YEARS, THOMBRA MATTAPPILLIL HOUSE, IRINGOLE KARA, PERUMBAVOOR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM-683 542.

¶12

2. MOHAN, S/O.LATE KURIACHAN, AGED 57 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, THOMBRA MATTAPPILLIL HOUSE, IRINGOLE KARA,PERUMBAVOOR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM-683 542.

¶13

3. VIJAYAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, PASHRAMALI HOUSE, PULLUVAZHI KARA, RAYMANGALAM VILLAGE-683 542.

¶14

4. ALIAS, S/O.VARGHESE, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, KUTTIYADA HOUSE, IRINGOLE KARA, PERUMBAVOOR VILLAGE,PIN- 683 542.

¶15

2/-

¶16

-2-

¶17

OP(C).NO.2025/2016

¶18

5. VARGHESE, S/O.THOMAS, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, PARAMPATHI HOUSE, IRINGOLE KARA, PERUMBAVOOR VILLAGE-683 542.

¶19

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

sts

¶21

OP(C).No. 2025 of 2016 (O)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶24

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.323/16 OF MUNSIFFS COURT, PERUMBAVOOR.

¶25

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE EXECUTION PETITION EP 45/13 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT,PERUMBAVOOR.

¶26

EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE STAY PETITION IN EP 45/13 MUNSIFFS COURT, PERUMBAVOOR.

¶27

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

¶33

O.P. (Civil) No.2025 of 2016

¶34

------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26^th day of August, 2016

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

This original petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the intervention of this court to give direction to the Munisff, Perumbavoor to expedite disposal of Ext.P3 petition filed before that court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶37

It is alleged in the petiton that the petitioner herein filed O.S.No.323/2016 before the Munsiff Court, Perumbavoor declare the decree obtained by respondents 1 and 2 in O.S.No.159/1994 and 272/1995 of Munsiff Court, Perumbavoor as null and void obtained by fraud and consequential reliefs. According to the petitioner, he is not a party to the proceedings and respondents 1 and 2 have filed Ext.P2 petition as E.P.No.45/2013 before the Munsiff Court, Perumbavoor to execute that decree. When he came to know about the same, he filed the above suit and also filed Ext.P3 petition before the Munsiff Court, Perumbavoor as E.A.No.137/2016 to stay the proceedings under Order 21 Rule 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure and without disposing that application, court below is proceeding with the execution. So the petitioner has no other remedy except to approach this court, seeking the following reliefs:

¶38

(i) To call for the records in respect of Ext.P2, EP 45/13 of Munsiff Court, Perumbavoor and direct to keep in abeyance the

¶39

O.P. (Civil) No.2025 of 2016

¶40

¶41

entire execution proceedings till the disposal of Ext.P1 suit, OS 323/16 before Munsiff's Court, Perumbavoor, in the interest of justice.

¶42

(ii) To issue appropriate directioins to the Munsiff's Court, Perumbavoor to take up Ext.P3 application in EP 45/13 and to consider the same on merits within a time limit and to keep in abeyance the further proceedings under Ext.P2, in the interest of justice.

¶43

(iii) Grant such other and further reliefs as may be prayed for hereafter and deemed fit and proper by this Hon'ble court, to consider Ext.P3 application within a time limit, in the interest of justice.

¶44

Considering the nature of relief claimed, this court felt that the petition can be disposed of at the admission stage itself after hearing the counsel for the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that Ext.P3 petition is still pending.

¶45

When a party has filed a petition before the court seeking certain relief against the execution of the decree, then there is a duty cast on the court to dispose of that application before proceeding with the execution. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that, it is now posted for objection by the other side. So considering the circumstances, this court feels that the petition can be disposed of as follows:

¶46

The Munsiff, Perumbavoor is directed to expedite disposal of E.A.No.137/2016 in E.P.No.45/2013 in

¶47

O.P. (Civil) No.2025 of 2016

¶48

¶49

O.S.No.159/94 pending before that court as expeditiously

¶50

as possible at any rate within one month from the date of

¶51

receipt of this judgment.

¶52

Registry is directed to communicate this judgment to the court

¶53

below at the earliest.

¶54

Sd/- (K. Ramakrishnan, Judge)

¶55

//True Copy//

¶56

P.A. to Judge

¶57

Sunny Mathew v. Annamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunny Mathew v. Annamma

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

Kurikkalakath Abdul Sathar Vs the Thaluk Land Board

Mary @ Kunjamma Vs Lilly Jerom and Others

K.A. Unnikrishnan Vs a.Unnikrishnan

Sunil Kumar M.S Vs Vijayan M.C.

Manakkal Nandakumar Vs M. Subramanyan

Vijayalekshmi Vs Pokker