Disposed

K.K. Rajeevan, v. C.R.Neena

Kerala HC16 Nov 2018OP (FC)/627/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of a writ petition under Article 227 challenging delay in lifting property attachment due to lack of recording of satisfaction in an execution petition. The court directed the Family Court to decide pending matters with a hearing within one month.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Family Court, Ernakulam to consider and pass appropriate orders in the execution petition and objection application within one month after hearing both sides.

K.K. Rajeevan, Vs C.R.Neena — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR

¶5

FRIDAY ,THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 /25TH KARTHIKA, 1940

¶6

OP (FC).No. 627 of 2018

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP 801/1999 of FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

K.K. RAJEEVAN, AGED 54 YEARS S/O.KUNJAN, KONDOTTY KARAYIL, CHOWARA, KONDOTTY, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.C.CHANDRASEKHARAN SMT.P.M.SWAYAM PRABHA

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 C.R.NEENA, AGED 51 YEARS D/O.C.R.RAJAN, CHERUVATTIPARAMBIL VEETTIL, PONOTH LANE, KALOOR, KOCHI-682 017.

¶13

2 SILPA, AGED 22 YEARS CHERUVATTIPARAMBIL VEETTIL, PONOTH LANE, KALOOR, KOCHI-682 017.

¶14

THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

O.P.(FC) No.627 /2018

-:2:-

C.K. ABDUL REHIM

T.V. ANILKUMAR, JJ.

¶20

-----------------------------------------------------

¶21

O.P.(FC) No. 627 OF 2018 R

¶22

-------------------------------------------------------

¶23

Dated this the 16^th day of November, 2018

¶24

J U D G M E N T

¶25

Abdul Rehim, J.

¶26

In view of the limited relief sought for in this original petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and in

¶27

view of the relief proposed through this judgment, it is not necessary to issue notice to the respondents. Hence the above

¶28

case is disposed of at the stage of admission itself.

¶29

The petitioner herein is the judgment debtor in O.P. No.801/99 on the files of the Family Court, Ernakulam, the decree of which stands merged with the appellate decree passed by this court in Mat. Appeal No.89/2006, dated 9th June, 2017. Case of the petitioner is that, despite payment of the entire decree amount in E.P. No.21/2018, the Family Court

¶30

O.P.(FC) No.627 /2018

¶31

-:3:-

¶32

is not recording satisfaction and closing the execution petition. As a consequence, the attachment pending against immovable property of the petitioner could not be released. The petitioner had filed I.A. No.3953 of 2018 seeking for lifting of the attachment against his immovable property.

¶33

But the court below is not considering the same, is the grievance expressed. We take note of the fact that the attachment can be lifted only after recording full satisfaction in the execution petition, going by provisions contained in Order XXI Rule 55 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Grievance voiced by the petitioner is that the court is unnecessarily delaying the matter in E.P. No.21/2018 as well as in I.A. No.3953/2018 filed in O.P. No.801/1999. We are of the considered opinion that the interest of justice can be achieved by directing the Family Court, Ernakulam to consider the matter and to pass appropriate orders in E.P. No.21/2018 as well as in I.A. No.3953/2018, in O.P. No.801/99, within a time frame.

¶34

O.P.(FC) No.627 /2018

¶35

-:4:-

¶36

Therefore the above original petition is hereby

¶37

disposed of by directing the Family Court, Ernakulam to consider and pass appropriate orders in E.P. No.21/2018 as well as I.A. No.3953/2018 filed in the O.P. No.801/1999, after affording opportunity of hearing to both sides, as early as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.

¶38

Sd/- C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE .

¶39

Sd/- T.V. ANILKUMAR, JUDGE, JUDGE .

ul/-

[True copy]

P.S. to Judge.

O.P.(FC) No.627 /2018

¶44

-:5:-

¶45

APPENDIX

¶46

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶47

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN MAT. APPEALS NO.67/2006 AND 89/2006 DATED 9.6.2017 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶48

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF EXECUTION PETITION E.P.N.21/2008 DATED 16.2.2018 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS.

¶49

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JOINT CALCULATION STATEMENT DATED 8.6.2018 FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

¶50

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 4.8.2018 TO EXT-P3.

¶51

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND DRAFT DATED 8.8.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT ALONG WITH MEMO DATED 13.8.2018.

¶52

EXHIBIT P6

¶53

TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO.3953/2018 IN O.P.NO.801/2005 DATED 5.9.2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER.

K.K. Rajeevan, v. C.R.Neena

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.K. Rajeevan, v. C.R.Neena

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

Vinitha Vs Krishnadas @ Premanandan

Rajani Vs C.K.Jyothis

N.Ugrasenan Vs State Police Chief

Muhammed Jaseel B. Vs State of Kerala

Sharafunnisa Vs the Superintendent of Police

Jaya Biju, Vs District Police Chief