Dismissed

Nss Karayogam Branch NO.1365 v. Mahim Aboobaker

Kerala HC2 Mar 2017CRP/121/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed the revision petition challenging the execution court's dismissal of an objection. The court held that the objection regarding affidavit submission under Rule 330, available at the Rule 66 stage, was not raised earlier and was barred from being agitated under Order XXI Rule 90 CPC.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed without costs.

Nss Karayogam Branch NO.1365 Vs Mahim Aboobaker — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH 2017/11TH PHALGUNA, 1938

¶5

CRP.No. 121 of 2015 (A)

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CMA 35/2012 of DISTRICT COURT, ALAPPUZHA DATED 16-09-2014

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ JUDGMENT DEBTOR: -

¶8

NSS KARAYOGAM BRANCH NO.1365, NEERKUNNAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESENT SECRETARY P. GOPALA KRISHNAN UNNITHAN (68), S/O PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT CHOPPANADU HOUSE, NEERKUNNAM MURI, AMBALAPUZHA VILLAGE

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SADANANDA PRABHU

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/ DECREE HOLDER: -

¶11

MAHIM ABOOBAKER (65), NEDUMPURATHU HOUSE, NEERKUNNAM, AMBALAPUZHA 688561.

¶12

R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN

¶13

R1 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE MATHEW R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G R1 BY ADV. SRI.DIPU JAMES

¶14

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

DMR/-

¶16

P. SOMARAJAN, J.

¶17

C.R.P. No. 121 of 2015

¶18

Dated this the 02^nd day of March, 2017

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This revision is filed against the order passed in C.M.A.No.35 of 2012 dated 16.09.2014 of the District Court, Alappuzha by the judgment debtor/revision petitioner. The above said CMA was preferred against the order passed in E.A.No.74 of 2012 dated 12.06.2012 in E.P.No.234 of 2008 in O.S.No.30 of 2007 of the Sub Court, Alappuzha. The main challenge raised against the order passed by the first appellate court is that the non submission of an affidavit under Rule 330 of Civil Rules Practice has not been considered by the execution court and that the sale was adjourned at the instance of decree holder on a subsequent date on the reason

¶21

that no other bidders were available at that time and ultimately the property purchased and bid in auction by the decree holder with the permission of the court. The present E.A.No.74 of 2012 was admittedly filed under Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Needless to say that Order

¶22

C.R.P. No. 121 of 2015

¶23

¶24

XXI Rule 90 CPC is subject to sub rule (3) of Rule 90 which debars the judgment debtor from claiming any ground which was available at the stage of Rule 66. Hence, the matter would not come under the purview of Order XXI Rule 90 CPC, the lower court has rightly dismissed the case. At the Rule 66 stage, the judgment debtor though opted to file his objection, the said question of non compliance of Rule 330 of Civil Rules Practice was neither raised nor put up at the time of argument. As such, the revision fails, deserves only dismissal and I do so,

¶25

but without cost.

¶26

P. SOMARAJAN, JUDGE

¶27

DMR/-

Nss Karayogam Branch NO.1365 v. Mahim Aboobaker

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nss Karayogam Branch NO.1365 v. Mahim Aboobaker

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

Babu Vs Sarala Kumari

Louis Vs Haridasan

The Special Tahsildar.L.a.No.I Vs Kunchamma and Another

Ammanarcoil Vs St. Thomas Ferona Church

Sweety Xavier Vs Sebastian Joseph

Kottakkakathu Vattaparambilkuduma Kshetra Trust Vs Kottakkakathu Vattapparambil Kudumba Kshetra Trust