Disposed

Sasidharan, v. Sisupalan

Kerala HC3 Apr 2019OP(C)/517/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court addressed the grievance regarding delay in execution proceedings arising from a compromise decree. It directed the court below to issue notice to the Advocate Commissioner if the report is not filed and to complete proceedings within three months of receipt.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the court below to complete execution proceedings within three months from the date of receipt of the commission report.

Sasidharan, Vs Sisupalan — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE 03RD DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 13TH CHAITHRA, 1941

¶5

OP(C).No. 517 of 2019

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 850/2013 of II ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT , NEYYATTINKARA DATED 22-07-2017

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

SASIDHARAN, AGED 73 YEARS SON OF DHAMODARA PANICKER, REMYA NIVAS, T.C 22/666, CHIRAMUKKU, MANACAUD VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 009.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.S.VINOD BHAT KUM.ANAGHA LAKSHMY RAMAN

¶10

RESPONDENT:

¶11

SISUPALAN, AGED 60 YEARS SON OF DHAMODARA PANICKER, ASWATHI NIVAS, PLAMOOTTUKADA, NALLORVATTAM DESOM, KULATHUR VILLAGE, PLAMOOTTUKADA P.O PIN 695 128, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.R.GOPAN

¶13

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.04.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

O.P(C).517/19

JUDGMENT

The grievance of the petitioner herein is regarding the delay in the disposal of the execution proceedings arising from a compromise decree. Pursuant to a direction issued from this Court, Additional Munsiff, who is in charge of Principal Munsiff by his communication dated 28.03.2019 has informed that, E.P. Stand posted to 20.05.2019 awaiting commission report in E.A.No.109 of 2017. However, learned Munsiff has not offered any time frame for the disposal of the matter.

¶18

Heard both sides. After examining the records, I feel that, there is no purpose in keeping the matter pending without bringing it to logical conclusion.

¶19

It is submitted by both sides that the commissioner has inspected the property and report is awaited. Accordingly, if the report is not filed, court below shall issue notice to the Advocate Commissioner to file the report at the earliest and after the report is filed, shall complete the execution proceedings at the earliest, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of commission report.

¶20

Original petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS

JUDGE

Sbna

O.P(C).517/19

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶29

EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16-01-2015 IN O.P(C) 1822/2014 OF HIGH COURT OF KEREALA. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF EXECUTION ETITION E.P 190/2015 IN O.S 850/2013 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, NEYYATTINKARA

¶30

EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF DELIVERY WARRANT WITH REPORT IN E.P 190/2015 IN O.S 850/2013 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, NEYYATTINKARA

¶31

EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF PETITION OF E.A 209/2016 IN E.P 190/2015 IN O.S 850/2013 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, NEYYATTINKARA. EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF PETITION OF E.A 109/2017 IN E.P 190/2015 IN O.S 850/2013 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, NEYYATTINKARA. EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF ORDER DATED 22-07-2017 IN E.A 109/2017 IN E.P 190/2015 IN O.S 850/2013 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, NEYYATTINKARA.

Sasidharan, v. Sisupalan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sasidharan, v. Sisupalan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahaprasad Vs M.S.Deepa

Abdulsalam Vs Nisam

Prajil .K. Vs Tata Motors Finance Ltd.

Shyamlal.M.N. Vs Krishnakumari

Pravida Menon Vs Krishnan@Asok

Shafeek F., Vs the State of Kerala