The court dismissed the objection petition challenging an execution order directing sale of property, holding that the order showed no infirmity and the petitioner failed to comply with an interim stay condition regarding payment.
The objection petition challenging the order directing proclamation and sale was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019/19TH POUSHA, 1940
O.P.(C)No.2325 of 2018
(AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN E.P.NO.4/2017 IN O.S.No.428/2014 OF MUNSIFF COURT, KATTAPPANA DATED 18-08-2018)
PETITIONER/JUDGMENT DEBTOR/DEFENDANT:
SABU P.T., AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.THANKAPPAN, PUTHENPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHEMPAKAPPARA P.O., CHEMPAKKAPPARA KARA, KALKOONTHAL VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT, 685 554.
BY ADVS. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN A.G.SUNIL KUMAR SMT.BHANU THILAK SRI.DIPU JAMES SRI.GEORGE MATHEW M.D.SASIKUMARAN SRI.SETHURAM DHARMAPALAN
RESPONDENTS/DECREE HOLDER/PLAINTIFF:
GEORGE JOSEPH, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, KOTTARATHIL HOUSE, VALIYATHOVALA PO, VALIYATHOVALA KARA, PAMPADUMPARA VILLLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT CHEMPAKAPPARA KARA, KALKOONTHAL VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685 554.
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
O.P.(C)No.2325 of 2018
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the judgment debtor in a decree for money. The suit was compromised and the decree was passed in terms thereof. On compliance of the decree by the judgment debtor, the decree holder filed E.P.No.4/2017 seeking execution of the decree by sale of the immovable property of the judgment debtor.
The present challenge is against Ext.P3 order dated 18.8.2018 in E.P.No.4/2017, whereunder the court directed proclamation and sale of the property.
The impugned order shows that the court below has considered in detail regarding the value of the property, encumbrance over the same etc. It is noticed that the fair value register has also been taken to consideration by the court while fixing the upset price. I do not find any infirmity with the order impugned.
O.P.(C)No.2325 of 2018
3
It is also noticed that though there was an interim direction by this court to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) to the decree holder as condition for stay, the same has not been complied with.
In view thereof, the original petition is only to be dismissed and I do so.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN
JUDGE
ss
O.P.(C)No.2325 of 2018
4
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF EXECUTION PETITION DATED 27/1/2017 IN EP NO.4 OF 2017 IN OS NO.428 OF 2014 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, KATTAPANA. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION DATED 2/8/2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN EP NO. 4 OF 2017 IN OS NO.428 OF 2014 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, KATTAPANA. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY O F ORDER DATED 18/8/2018 IN EP NO.4 OF 2017 IN OS NO.428 OF 2014 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KATTAPANA.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the objection petition challenging the proclamation and sale order in an execution petition should be allowed.
Whether the failure of the petitioner to comply with an interim stay condition warrants dismissal of the objection.
SABU P.T.
GEORGE JOSEPH
SATHISH NINAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
