Dismissed

Sulaiman v. K.P. Babu

Kerala HC27 Jun 2016OP(C)/895/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed an original petition challenging the procedure adopted for the execution of a decree in a specific performance suit. The petitioner alleged lack of procedural compliance under Order 21 Rule 34 CPC, but the court found the lower court followed the correct procedure and no interference under Article 226 was warranted.

What did the court decide?

The original petition challenging the execution procedure was dismissed as the lower court followed the correct procedure under Order 21 Rule 34 CPC.

Sulaiman Vs K.P. Babu — Specific Performance | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL

¶4

MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/6TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

OP(C).No. 895 of 2016 (O)

¶6

O.S.NO. 183 OF 2008 OF SUB COURT, OTTAPALAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S) :

¶8

SULAIMAN, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. MADATHINKAL USSANKUTTY, CHUNANGAD AMSOM DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)

¶10

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶11

K.P. BABU, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.KOPATH PARAMMAL ABOOBACKER, KALADIPPATTA AMSOM ONGALLUR DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK-678 001.

¶12

BY SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN (SENIOR ADVOCATE) ADVS. SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH

¶13

SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR

¶14

SMT.N.DEEPA

¶15

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Msd.

¶17

OP(C).No. 895 of 2016 (O)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶20

EXT.P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S.NO.183 OF 2008 ON THE FILE OF THE SB COURT, OTTAPALAM DATED 09.12.2011.

¶21

EXT.P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SUB COURT, OTTAPALAM IN I.A.NO.973 OF 2012 IN O.S.NO.183 OF 2008 DATED 18.02.2016.

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

K. HARILAL, J.

O.P. (C) No.895 of 2016-O

¶29

-----------------------------------------------------Dated this the 27^th day of June, 2016

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

The petitioner herein is the defendant in O.S. No.183/2008 on the files of the Sub Court, Ottapalam, as well as in I.A. No.973/2012 filed therein. The suit is one for specific performance based on an agreement for sale and the suit decreed, as prayed for, and later, confirmed in appeal. Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that the trial court has passed Ext.P2 order directing the petitioner to execute the sale deed in favour of the respondent, in execution of the decree, without following the procedure contemplated under Order 21 Rule 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Thus, the legality of the procedure adopted by the court below court is under challenge in this Original

¶32

O.P. (C) No.895 of 2016 -: 2 :-

¶33

Petition (Civil).

¶34

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶35

The respondent filed a counter affidavit and produced Exts.R1(a) and R1(b). In the counter affidavit, it is specifically contended that the draft sale deed was produced on 02/06/2014 and a copy was given to the petitioner, as directed by the court below, and after obtaining two adjournments, the petitioner had filed an objection to the I.A. on 13/11/2014. A copy of the objection filed by the petitioner to the draft sale deed is produced and marked as Ext.R1(b). The court below heard the objection and posted the matter on 11/12/2014 and the matter was again posted to 9/1/2015 for verification of the draft sale deed. Again, the matter was adjourned to 29/10/2015 and the draft sale deed was accepted after approval.

¶36

The learned counsel for the respondent drew my attention to the procedure followed by the court below which is discernible from the counter affidavit

¶37

O.P. (C) No.895 of 2016

¶38

-: 3 :-

¶39

and Exts.R1(a) and R1(b). The petitioner has not challenged the sequence of events discernible from the counter affidavit. Therefore, I find that the court below has followed the procedure contemplated under Order 21 Rule 34 of the CPC. There is no scope for interference under Art.226 of the Constitution of India.

¶40

Consequently, this Original Petition (Civil) will stand dismissed.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

(K. HARILAL, JUDGE)

¶43

Nan/

¶44

//true copy//

¶45

P.S. to Judge

Sulaiman v. K.P. Babu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sulaiman v. K.P. Babu

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

Jameel Sooraj Vs Basheer

Easy Vs Gopalakrishna Kamath

Sainath Enterprises Vs the Catholic Syrian Bank Limited

K.Sivaraman Vs M.Sankarankutty

Ramachandra Bhat and Others Vs K.Thirumaleshwara Prasanna

Madhavan Vs Bhagyam Kuries (P) Ltd.