Allowed

M/S Muthoot Vehicle and Asset Finance Ltd. v. Suresh Pp

Kerala HC4 Nov 2016OP(C)/2586/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court of Kerala directed the Second Additional District Judge in Alappuzha to expedite the disposal of an execution application for delivery of auctioned property, stipulating a one-month deadline.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd Additional District Judge to dispose of the execution application within one month.

M/S Muthoot Vehicle and Asset Finance Ltd. Vs Suresh… — 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 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/13TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

OP(C).No. 2586 of 2016 (O)

¶6

EA.210/2016 IN EP.56/2009 OF 1ST ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, ALAPPUZHA

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

M/S MUTHOOT VEHICLE AND ASSET FINANCE LTD, MUTHOOT CHAMBERS, II FLOOR, OPP. SARITHA THEATRE, BANERJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM-18, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER AND MANAGER, MADHU E., S/O.LATE KELAPPAN, AGED 39 YEARS.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.SHIJU VARGHESE

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. SURESH P.P. AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.PRABHAKARAN, 193, PUTHENTHOPPIL, VARANAM PO, KANNANGARA, THANNERMUKKAM-688 555.

¶12

2. BABURAJ, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.PRABHAKARAN, 194, PUTHENTHOPPIL, VARANAM PO, KANNANGARA, THANNERMUKKAM-688 555.

¶13

3. PRABHAVATHY, AGED 79 YEARS, W/O.PRABHAKARAN, 193, PUTHENTHOPPIL, VARANAM PO, KANNANGARA, THANNERMUKKAM-688555.

¶14

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

OP(C).No. 2586 of 2016 (O) ---------------------------

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF EA NO.210/2016 IN EP NO.56/2010 DATED 2-7-2016. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS -----------------------

¶19

NIL. / TRUE COPY / P.S. TO JUDGE PJ

¶20

P.S. TO JUDGE

¶21

K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

¶22

O.P.(C).No.2586 of 2016

¶23

Dated this the 4^th day of November, 2016.

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

This is a petition filed by the petitioner seeking intervention of this court for a speedy disposal of EA.No.210/2016 in EP.No.56/2009 pending before the First Additional District Court, Alappuzha under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶26

It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner is the decree holder in EP.No.56/2009 on the fie of First Additional District Court, Alappuzha which was filed for recovery of the amount due from the respondents on the basis of an arbitral award. The property was put in auction on 14.1.2015 and the petitioner bid in the auction and sale was confirmed in his favour and sale certificate was also issued. Thereafter he filed EA.No.210/2016 in EP.No.56/2009 under Order 21 Rule 95 of the Code of Civil Procedure for delivery of the property on the basis of sale sannad issued evidenced by Ext.P1. The court below is not passing any orders in that application. So the petitioner has no other remedy except to approach this court seeking the following reliefs:

¶27

a. Issue a direction to the 1^st Additional District Court, Alappuzha to dispose of Ext.P1 petition within a time limit prescribed by this court.

¶28

b. Cost of the proceedings.

¶29

Considering the nature of reliefs claimed, this court has

¶30

O.P.(C).No.2586 of 2016

¶31

¶32

called for a report from the 2^nd Additional District Judge regarding the present stage of the case and time required for disposal of the same. Accordingly a report has been called for and the 2^nd Additional District Judge has sent a report which reads as follows:

¶33

“With reference to the above I may submit that EA 210/16 in EP 56/09 is filed with a prayer to issue a warrant for delivery of the decree scheduled property. The decree holder purchased the property for Rs.20,36,135/- in a court auction held on 14.1.15. The respondents/judgment debtors were served notice and they remained absent on 12.8.16. A warrant for delivery was ordered by the court and the Amin returned the warrant for want of the assistance of a surveyor to measure the property. Accordingly a surveyor was appointed to assist the Amin on 5.10.2016 and posted the case to 3.11.2016 for report delivery. The EA can be closed without further delay after receiving the report of delivery”.

¶34

Heard Sri.Shiju Varghese, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the report.

¶35

In the report, it is stated that a warrant for delivery was ordered by the court below and the Amin returned the warrant for want of the assistance of a surveyor to measure the property. Accordingly a surveyor was appointed to assist the Amin on 5.10.2016 and posted the case to 3.11.2016 for report delivery. This court is not aware as to whether the surveyor has inspected

¶36

O.P.(C).No.2586 of 2016

¶37

¶38

and identified the property and property has been delivered or not. Counsel for the petitioner is also not in a position to say regarding the present stage.

¶39

However considering the stage and report, this court feels that the petition can be disposed of directing the 2^nd Additional District Judge to dispose of the case at the earliest. So the petition is disposed of as follows:

¶40

The Second Additional District Judge, who is in charge of First Additional District Judge, Alappuzha is directed to expedite the disposal of EA.No.210/2016 in EP.No.56/2009 pending before that court as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶41

With the above directions and observants, this petition is disposed of. Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this judgment to the court below at the earliest.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

¶44

M/S Muthoot Vehicle and Asset Finance Ltd. v. Suresh Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Muthoot Vehicle and Asset Finance Ltd. v. Suresh Pp

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

Thomas Mathew Vs Scaria K.M

Devadas J Vs Chellamma

Peter Vs Joseph Peter

Jinitha Jaimon Vs Rajendran

Hari Vs Simon

Narayanan Vs Vasu