Disposed

Jawahar v. Ramananda Shenoy

Kerala HC23 Sept 2016OP(C)/2313/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order expedited an Article 226 petition seeking early disposal of applications in an execution petition. The High Court directed the Sub Court to dispose of pending claim applications within three weeks and keep execution proceedings in abeyance until then.

What did the court decide?

Directed Sub Court to expedite disposal of pending applications within three weeks and keep execution proceedings in abeyance until that time.

Jawahar Vs Ramananda Shenoy — 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 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/1ST ASWINA, 1938

¶5

OP(C).No. 2313 of 2016 (O)

¶6

O.S.422/1995 OF SUB COURT, KOCHI

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

JAWAHAR

¶9

S/O. LATE BAHULEYAN, IRINGATHURUTHY, MUNAMBAM MURI, KUZHUPPILLY VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY

¶11

SMT.K.K.JYOTHILAKSHMY

SRI.EBIN MATHEW

RESPONDENTS:

1. RAMANANDA SHENOY

S/O. NARAYANA SHENOY, KAITHAVALAPPIL HOUSE, AZHEEKKAL DESOM, AT PRESENT RESIDNG AT 13-B, N.D.D.B.CAMPUS, ANAND-388 001, GUJARAT. (DIED)

¶16

2. SMT. V.P.SAKEENA

¶17

W/O. LATE T.M.ASHRAF, RESIDING AT DOOR NO.13/476, K.C.ROAD, CHULLIKKAL, KOCHI-682 005.

¶18

3. MRS. SUMATHY SHENOY

¶19

W/O. LATE RAMANANDA SHENOY, B 13, NDDB CAMPUS, ANAND, GUJARAT-388 001.

¶20

4. RAMANAND AJITH SHENOY

¶21

S/O. LATE RAMANANDA SHENOY, GRENDON C1, BISITT, SOUTH HAMPTON.

¶22

5. ASHA RAMESH MIRAKR

¶23

D/O. LATE RAMANANDA SHENOY, 7424, HUDSON, U.S.A.

¶24

6. ANIL SHENOY

¶25

S/O. LATE RAMANANDA SHENOY, NDDB CAMPUS,

¶26

ANAND, GUJARAT-388 001.

¶27

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-09-2016, THE

¶28

COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

OP(C).No. 2313 of 2016 (O)

¶30

APPENDIX

¶31

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶32

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF EA NO.17/2011 IN EP NO.7/2010 IN OS NO.422/1995, SUB COURT, KOCHI.

¶33

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF EA NO.13/2016 IN EP 7/2010 IN OS NO.422/1995, SUB COURT, KOCHI.

¶34

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DATED 28.1.2016 FILED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT IN EA NO.13/2016 IN EP 7/2010 IN OS NO.422/1995, SUB COURT, KOCHI.

¶35

//True copy//

¶36

P.S to Judge

¶37

K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J

¶38

- - - - O.P.(C).2313 of 2016

¶39

- - - - Dated 23^rd September, 2016

¶40

¶41

JUDGMENT

¶42

1.This is an application filed by the petitioner seeking early disposal of Ext.P2 application filed by the petitioner before Sub Court, Kochi, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶43

2.It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner is the first claimant. The petitioner in Ext.P1 application filed as E.A.17/2011 in EP.7/2010 in OS.422/1995 of Sub Court, Kochi, under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) claimed that he is the owner of the property and the judgment debtor has no right over the property and on the basis of the decree obtained, the property cannot be proceeded against. According to

¶44

OP(C).2313/16

¶45

¶46

the petitioner, the matter has been settled between the legal heirs of the original decree holders who have been impleaded in the Execution proceedings. Decree was also obtained by the first decree holder against the 2^nd respondent in the case.

¶47

3.The decree holders filed Ext.P2 petition for deleting the 2^nd respondent who is the sole judgment debtor in the execution proceedings, from the party array. The petitioner herein filed Ext.P2 EA.13/2016 in EP.7/2010 in OS.422/1995 before the Sub Court, Kochi to delete the judgment debtor from the party array and the 6^th respondent in that application, who is one of the decree holders filed a counter affidavit for and on behalf of the other decree holders as well, stating that they have no objection in allowing the application but in spite of that, the court below is

¶48

OP(C).2313/16

¶49

¶50

not passing any orders in the application and the court below is insisting to proceed with the execution proceedings. So the petitioner has no other remedy except to approach this court seeking the following relief.

¶51

Issue an order of direction, directing the Sub Court, Kochi, to pass orders on Ext.P2 application in the light of the clear acceptance of the out of court settlement admitted in the counter affidavit filed therein, so as to allow the parties to effectuate their interse settlement in a proper and legal manner.

¶52

4.Considering the nature of relief claimed in the petition, this court feels that the petition can be disposed of at the admission stage itself after hearing the counsel for the petitioner Sri.Dinesh R.Shenoy.

¶53

5.The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter has been settled between the decree holders and the claim

¶54

OP(C).2313/16

¶55

¶56

petitioner. According to the claim petitioner, the judgment debtor is not a necessary party in the proceedings and they are settling the claim with the decree holders. Without disposing that application, proceeding with the Execution Petition is causing hardship to them.

¶57

6.Before proceeding with the Execution Petition, it is for the court to pass appropriate orders in the claim petition. If any application has been filed by the claim petitioner in the claim petition before proceeding with the claim petition, the court below is expected to pass some orders in the application filed by them in their claim petition as well. Keeping the interlocutory applications filed pending and proceeding with the main cases will only cause hardship to the parties. So under such circumstances this Court

¶58

OP(C).2313/16

¶59

¶60

feels that the petition can be disposed of as follows.

¶61

Sub Court, Kochi, is directed to expedite disposal of EA.13/2016 and EA.17/2011 in EP.7/2010 in OS.422/1995 pending before that court as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment and till the dispose of that petitions, the court below is directed to keep the execution proceedings in abeyance.

¶62

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

¶63

Registry is directed to communicate this judgment to the concerned court by phone followed by fax immediately.

¶64

Sd/-

¶65

K.RAMAKRISHNAN Judge

¶66

Mrcs/23.9.2016

¶67

//True copy//

¶68

P.S to Judge

Jawahar v. Ramananda Shenoy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jawahar v. Ramananda Shenoy

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

Kseb Vs a.a.Shamsudheen

Leeladevi Amma Vs L Ajith

Joisy John Vs Dr.Jose Jacob

T.K.Radhakrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Sukumaran K.K. Vs State of Kerala

Sukumaran K.K. Vs State of Kerala