The single-judge High Court of Kerala dismissed a review petition filed against a judgment in execution proceedings. The court held that Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act did not apply as the sale occurred before the attachment application. The petition was termed a misuse of court process.
The review petition 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 P.SOMARAJAN
TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 14TH POUSHA, 1943
RP NO. 953 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.11.2021 IN Ex.FA 31/2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS IN EX.F.A:
1ST.GEORGE BANKERS & KURIES,
EDATHUA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SAJI
GEORGE, S/O CHERIYAN GEORGE, RESIDING AT KAVILA VEETTIL,
PACHA, CHEKKIDIKADU P.O., EDATHUA, PIN-689 574
2 SAJI GEORGE, S/O CHERIYAN GEORGE, RESIDING AT KAVILA VEETTIL, PACHA, CHEKKIDIKADU P.O., EDATHUA, PIN – 689 5743 LIZY GEORGE, W/O CHERIYAN , RESIDING AT KAVILA VEETTIL, PACHA, CHEKKIDIKADU P.O., EDATHUA,PIN-689 5744JOSEPH GEORGE,
PARNTER, S/O CHERIYAN GEORGE, RESIDING AT KAVILA VEETTIL,
PACHA, CHEKKIDIKADU P.O., EDATHUA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, CHERIYAN GEORGE, S/O. CHERIYAN,
RESIDING AT KAVILA VEETTIL, PACHA, CHEKKIDIKADU P.O.,
EDATHUA, PIN-689 574
BY ADVS.
E.N.VISHNU NAMBOODIRI
NARAYANAN P POTTY
P.REJINARK
M.K.SASEENDRAN (MELEL)
P.SANKARAN NAMPOOTHIRI
A.K.MAYAKRISHNAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN EX.F.A.:
1 HARIKUMAR G., S/O. T.N.VENUGOPALA PANICKER, PANAYASSERI, MUTTAR P.O., KUTTANADU, PIN-689 5742 SHYNI HARIKUMAR, W/O.HARIKUMAR, PANAYASSERI, MUTTAR P.O., KATTANADU, PIN-689 5743 K.N.BADRAN, S/O. C.N.NANU PANICKER, RESIDING AT KULATHINTE VADAKKETHIL, KARAKKAD P.O., CHENGANNUR, PIN-689 504RP NO. 953 OF 2021 2
4 K.V.KANAKAN, W/O. SOMARAJAN, RESIDING AT SANKARAMANGALAM VADAKKETHIL, KARAKKAD P.O., CHENGANNUR, PIN-689 5045 DELITE J.VETTIKKADU, RESIDING AT VETTIKKADU, CHENGANNUR, CHENGANNUR.P.O., PIN-689 1216 SAMUEL K.K.SCARIA, RESIDING AT K.K.LITTY COTTAGE, CHENGANNUR, CHENGANNUR.P.O., PIN-689 1217 ANILKUMAR .G. S/O. GOAPALAKRISHNA PANICKER, RESIDING AT KEEZHCHERIMEL, CHANGANNUR P.O., CHENGANNUR, PIN-689 1218VIPINKUMAR,
AGED 26 YEARS
S/O. SHINY, RESIDING AT PANAYASSERI, MUTTAR P.O., MUTTAR
VILLAGE, KUTTANADU TALUK, PIN-689 574
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.01.2022,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RP NO. 953 OF 2021 3
ORDER
Review petition was filed on the ground that the alleged sale, which was effected in the year 2006, was not within the notice of review petitioner at the time when the attachment application was filed in the year 2013 and that fact was not taken into consideration by this court while passing the impugned judgment.
I am at a loss to understand what actually prompted the petitioner to approach this court with the review petition without any ground. What is observed by this court is that Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act will not have any application since the sale was effected prior to the application for attachment, which was filed in the year 2013. It is a money suit wherein the property which was earlier sold is not a subject of the suit. As such, the claim petition was allowed by the trial court which was confirmed by this court. The review petition is really a misuse of process of this court and this kind of practice cannot be permitted even for a moment.
The Review Petition is dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
P.SOMARAJAN
JUDGE
msp
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a review petition should be allowed when the reliance on Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act is misplaced as the sale preceded the attachment.
Whether the review petition is a misuse of the process of court.
George Bankers & Kuries and others
Harikumar G. and others
P. Somarajan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court