Rosily v. R Sreekumar
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court of Kerala dismissed an original petition challenging an execution order. The court held that since there was no prayer for settling proclamation of sale terms, the specific notice under Order XXI Rule 54(1A) CPC was not mandatory.
What did the court decide?
Original petition filed under Article 227 to set aside the order and direct a fresh hearing for non-service of mandatory notice was dismissed.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 30TH MAGHA, 1939
OP(C).No. 206 of 2018
--------------------E.A NO.274/2017 IN E.P NO.19/2017 IN AC NO.253/2015 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
COURT IV, KOLLAM
--------
PETITIONER/2ND JUDGMENT DEBTOR
ROSILY, AGED 56, W/O.ALPHONSE, ANIL NIVAS, WEST OF KOTTANKULANGARA TEMPLE, KULANGARA BHAGOM, CHAVARA, KOLLAM - 690 583.
BY ADV.SRI.SAJU J PANICKER
RESPONDENT/DECREE HOLDER:
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether mandatory notice under Order XXI Rule 54(1A) CPC was required to be served on the judgment debtor before passing an order of attachment.
Whether the Original Petitioner was legally entitled to set aside the order under challenge due to alleged non-service of notice.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Rosily
- respondent
R. Sreekumar
Coram
Alexander Thomas
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court