Disposed

P.K.Sugathan v. George Joseph

Kerala HC15 Dec 2017FAO/17/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench disposed of an appeal and application to condone delay as settled out of court after the parties agreed to full satisfaction of the underlying decree. The court directed the lower court to record satisfaction and vacation of attachment.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed as settled; direction to lower court to record satisfaction of decree and vacation of attachment order.

P.K.Sugathan Vs George Joseph — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/24TH AGRAHAYANA, 1939

¶5

FAO.No. 17 of 2017 ()

¶6

---------------------AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 596/2010 IN OS 37/2007 OF SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA DATED 9.2.2011

¶7

APPELLANT/PETITIONER/DEFENDANT:

¶8

P.K.SUGATHAN S/O.KOCHUKUNJU, PERATHARAYIL HOUSE, PUNNAKKADU MURI, MALLAPUZHASSERY VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.C.R.SYAMKUMAR

¶10

SRI.P.SREEKUMAR SRI.SOORAJ T.ELENJICKAL SRI.K.ARJUN VENUGOPAL SMT.MARY RESHMA GEORGE SMT.V.A.HARITHA SMT.SANDHYA R.NAIR SMT.P.M.MAZNA MANSOOR

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:

¶12

GEORGE JOSEPH S/O.GEORGE, KUZHIYIL HOUSE, VETTIPPURAM MURI, PATHANAMTHITTA VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶13

R1 BY ADV. SRI.ARUN.B.VARGHESE(CAVEATOR) R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.V.SIDHARTHAN (SR.)

¶14

THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-12-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

vpv

¶16

P.N.RAVINDRAN & R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JJ.

¶17

=-=-==-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶18

C.M.Appln.No.100 of 2017 in F.A.O.No.17 of 2017 & F.A.O.No.17 of 2017

¶19

=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 15^th day of December, 2017

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

P.N.Ravindran, J.

¶22

F.A.O.No.17 of 2017 arises from the order passed by the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Pathanamthitta on 9.2.2011 dismissing I.A.No.596 of 2010, an application filed by the appellant herein to have the exparte decree passed against him in O.S.No.37 of 2007 set aside. As F.A.O.No.17 of 2017 was filed in this court with a delay of 2082 days, the appellant has filed C.M.Appln.No.100 of 2017 to condone the said period of delay.

¶23

When the application to condone the delay came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this court on 13.2.2017, this court passed an order directing the Registry to issue urgent notice returnable in ten days to the respondent, enclosing a copy of the order and calling upon him to show cause why the exparte decree passed by the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Pathanamthitta on 4.3.2010 in O.S.No.37 of 2007 shall not be set aside in exercise of the jurisdiction conferred on this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Notice was thereupon issued to the respondent in the same address in which notice in the application to condone delay was served on him.

¶24

F.A.O.No.17 of 2017

¶25

-:2:-

¶26

The said notice was returned unserved with the endorsement “addressee not known”. However in view of the fact that the respondent was represented by counsel in this court, we directed the respondent to be present in person in this court at 10.15 AM on 8.12.2017 so as to enable this court to serve the notice that was returned unserved on him as also a copy of the order passed by the Division Bench on 13.2.2017, on him personally. We also directed the learned counsel appearing for the respondent to communicate the order to the respondent. As directed therein, the respondent appeared in person in this court on 8.12.2017. On that day, we directed the Registry to serve a copy of the order passed by this court on 13.2.2017 on the respondent and to obtain his acknowledgement. The respondent was also directed to file an affidavit showing cause as directed in the said order. The respondent has, as directed, filed an affidavit dated 13.12.2017 in this court.

¶27

When the appeal was taken up for further consideration today, learned counsel on both sides submitted that the appellant and the respondent are present in person. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that after the last posting, the parties have come to a settlement and that the appellant has agreed to pay and the respondent has agreed to receive, in addition to the sum of Rs.17,60,000/- which has been paid till date, the sum of Rs.3,50,000/towards full and final satisfaction of the decree in O.S.No.37 of 2007

¶28

F.A.O.No.17 of 2017

¶29

-:3:-

¶30

above referred to. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the said sum has already been paid over by the appellant to the respondent. The respondent, who is present in person, submitted that he has received payment of the sum of Rs.3,50,000/- and has no further claim against the appellant.

¶31

In the light of the aforesaid submissions, this appeal and the application to condone the delay in filing the appeal are disposed of as settled out of court. In view of the settlement entered into between the parties as aforesaid, we also direct the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Pathanamthitta to record full satisfaction of the decree passed in O.S.No.37 of 2007 and to close E.P.No.44 of 2011 after recording full satisfaction of the decree. The court below shall also simultaneously pass an order vacating the order of attachment passed in the suit. This shall be done before 21.12.2017. The parties shall bear their respective costs.

¶32

Registry to issue certified copies of this judgment to learned counsel on both sides, if applied for, today itself.

Sd/-

P.N.RAVINDRAN

JUDGE

Sd/-

R.NARAYANA PISHARADI JUDGE

¶38

/true copy/

¶39

P.A. to Judge

¶40

vpv

P.K.Sugathan v. George Joseph

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.K.Sugathan v. George Joseph

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Damodaran Vs E.Sadasivan

The Block Panchayath, Attappady Vs Geogy George

R.S. Prabhakar Vs the Secretary, Pala Municipality

V. Jyothi Swaroop Vs Kadappamannil Balan

Ambika Vs K.Aravindakshan

Sharlaj Vs Geethakrishnan and Others