Dismissed

Latha Agencies v. S. Muthulekshmi

Kerala HC16 Mar 2023Ex.FA/10/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This execution appeal challenged the dismissal of a claim petition filed by a partnership firm under Order XXI Rule 58 of CPC. The Court held that inanimate bodies cannot utilize this remedy under CPC, rendering the application misconceived. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The execution first appeals were dismissed. The claim petition by the partnership firm regarding Order XXI Rule 58 of CPC was held misconceived.

Latha Agencies Vs S. Muthulekshmi — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1944

¶5

EX.FA NO. 10 OF 2017

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.01.2017 IN E.A.NO.313/08 IN EP 383/2007
IN O.S.NO.469/2002 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

APPELLANTS/CLAIM PETITIONERS 1 AND 2:

¶8

1 LATHA AGENCIES, A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM BEARING NO.539/74, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SREE HARIPRIYA, RESIDING AT LASYA, FIRST FLOOR, ST.MARY ROAD, ALWAPEET, CHENNAI.

¶9

2 SREEVIDHYA, PARTNER, LATHA AGENCIES, A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM BEARING NO.539/74 LASYA, FIRST FLOOR, ST.MARY ROAD, ALWAPEET, CHENNAI.

¶10

3 APPELLANTS 1 & 2 ARE REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SMT.SHARONE ANNE DIAS, W/O.BINU MOHAN JOSEPH, GOKUL HOUSE, PRASANTH NAGAR, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.P.R.VENKATESH SRI.G.KEERTHIVAS

¶11

RESPONDENTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS 1 AND 2:

¶12

1 S. MUTHULEKZHMI, W/O LATE SANTHARAM, T.C. 14/1343, PARIS ROAD, BAKERY JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001

¶13

2 INDU JAGATHEESH, D/O.LATE S.SANTHARAM, T.C. 14/343, PARIS ROAD, BAKERY JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001

¶14

3 MANJU SANTHARAM, D/O.LATE S. JANATHARAN

¶15

4 INDIN IRON AND STEEL CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, SOUTHERN REGION, REGINA MANSON, 2ND FLOOR, 2ND LANE, BEACH, CHENNAI.600001 R1 BY ADVS.SRI.K.L.HAREESH KUMAR SRI.A.S.SHAMMY RAJ

¶16

THIS EXECUTION FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
16.03.2023, ALONG WITH Ex.FA.15/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Ex.FA Nos.10/2017, 15/2017

¶18

¶19

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶20

PRESENT

¶21

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶22

THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1944

¶23

EX.FA NO. 15 OF 2017

¶24

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.01.2017 IN E.A.NO.398/09 IN
E.P.NO.501/07 IN OS 100/2002 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,

¶25

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶26

APPELLANTS/CLAIM PETITIONERS 1 AND 2:

¶27

1 LATHA AGENCIES,

¶28

A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM BEARING NO 539/74 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SREE HARIPRIYA,RESIDING AT LASYA, FIRST FLOOR, ST. MARY ROAD, ALWAPEET, CHENNAI.

¶29

2 SREEVIDHYA LEKLSHMI, PARTNER, LATHA AGENCIES, A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM BEARING NO. 539/74 LASYA, FIRST FLOOR, ST. MARY ROAD, ALWARPET, CHENNAI

¶30

APPELLANTS 1 & 2 ARE REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF
ATTORNEY HOLDER SMT. SARONE ANNE DIAS, W/O. BINU
MOHAN JOSEPH, GOKUL HOUSE, PRASANTH NAGAR, MEDICAL
COLLEGE P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
BY ADVS.SRI.P.R.VENKATESH
SRI.G.KEERTHIVAS

¶31

RESPONDENTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS 1 AND 2:

¶32

1 C.P.SURENDRAN, S/O. LATE PONNAN, RESIDING AT CHEETIYARVILAKATHU VEEDU,T.C 25/831,THEKKUMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶33

2 INDIAN IRON AND STEEL CO.LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, SOUTHERN REGION,REGINA MANSON, 2ND FLOOR, 2ND LANE, BEACH, CHENNAI. 600001

¶34

R1 BY ADVS.SRI.V.AJAKUMAR

¶35

 SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN
 SRI.SIDHARTH A.MENON

¶36

THIS EXECUTION FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING
ON 16.03.2023, ALONG WITH Ex.FA.10/2017, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶37

Ex.FA Nos.10/2017, 15/2017

¶38

¶39

JUDGMENT

¶40

The defendants 2 and 3 along with an inanimate
body, a partnership firm, came up with a claim
petition under Order XXI Rule 58 of CPC. It is not
permissible to take up the remedy under Order XXI
Rule 58 of CPC by any of the parties to the suit.
Hence, the application is misconceived and cannot be
sustained. The trial court has rightly dismissed
the claim petition, though under a different
reasoning. There is no reason for interference.
Both the appeals will stand dismissed accordingly.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

P.SOMARAJAN

¶43

JUDGE

¶44

msp

Latha Agencies v. S. Muthulekshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Latha Agencies v. S. Muthulekshmi

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

K.K.Kunhahu Vs K.C.Abdul Rahman

Joseph Saimon Vs Vareed George

Karthiyayani Vs Omana

Latha Agencies Vs C.P.Surendran

Raison Vs Sabuleyan

K.S.Muhammed Vs Mariyumma & Others