Dismissed

Rajamma v. Rajani

Kerala HC17 Mar 2021RP/339/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala reviewed a petition challenging its earlier judgment dismissing a plea to set aside a sale in execution proceedings. It ruled against invoking direct supervisory jurisdiction and dismissed the review. The court emphasized that aggrieved parties should approach the execution court directly for setting aside sales under the Civil Procedure Code.

What did the court decide?

Review petition dismissed; no supervisory jurisdiction invoked to set aside the sale in execution proceedings.

Rajamma Vs Rajani — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶7

RP.No.339 OF 2020 IN OP (FC). 136/2019

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP (FC)NO.136/2019 DATED 17.02.2020

¶9

REVIEW PETITIONER/S:

¶10

RAJAMMA, AGED 66 YEARS, W/O. JANARDHANAN, RESIDING AT ASANTEPADEETTATHIL, ILIPPAKUAM MURI, ILIPPAKUAM P.O, VALLIKUNNAM VILLAGE, MAVELIKARA, ALAPPUZHA-690 509.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI SMT.SABINA JAYAN

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

1 RAJANI, AGED 33 YEARS, D/O. MANIYAMMA, RESIDING AT PUTHENVEETTIL, NJAKKANAL MURI, KRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE, NJAKKANAL P.O, ALAPPUZHA-690 533.

¶14

2 MANUAL V.M, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.MICHELE, RESIDING AT VALAYILKULAM VEEDU, ASRAMAM WARD, ARYANADU THEKKE MURI, ARYANADU THEKKE VILLAGE, AMBALAPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA-688 561.

¶15

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

R.P.No.339/2020 2

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Dated this the 17th day of March 2021

¶19

A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.

¶20

This review petition arises from the judgment of this Court dismissing a petition to set aside the sale conducted in E.P.No.7/2014 in O.P.No.1192/2008 on the file of the Family Court, Mavelikkara. The petitioner approached this Court directly challenging the sale conducted in the execution proceedings. This Court by a detailed judgment, after adverting to all attending circumstances, dismissed the original petition.

¶21

The proceedings relating to the sale of

¶22

immovable property and setting aside the sale are envisaged under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It may not be proper for this Court to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction to interfere with the sale in execution proceedings directly. Aggrieved is free to move the execution court itself. Therefore, any observation or finding in the

¶23

R.P.No.339/2020 3

¶24

judgment will not stand in the way of the petitioner in moving the execution court in accordance with law, if any such right is available to set aside the sale. We do not find any ground to review the judgment.

¶25

With the above observations, this review petition is dismissed.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

JUDGE

Sd/-

C.S.DIAS

JUDGE

Rajamma v. Rajani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajamma v. Rajani

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

Shereena Vs Riyas

Anu Mary Yohannan Vs Manu Philip

Shyni @ Shynimol Vs Varghese Mathew @ Reji

Nobby.M.George Vs Jossy Joseph

Sreedevi P.S., Vs Vishal G.Nair

Gopalakrishnan Vs Rethnamma