Mohammed Salahudheen vs The Perinthalmanna Service Co-Op on 14 December, 2006

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 33262 of 2006(I)


1. MOHAMMED SALAHUDHEEN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE PERINTHALMANNA SERVICE CO-OP.
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SECRETARY,

3. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OP.

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.M.JAMES

 Dated :14/12/2006

 O R D E R
                             J.M.JAMES, J.

                              -------------------

                         W.P.(C). 33262/2006

                              --------------------

             Dated this  the 14th day of December, 2006


                              JUDGMENT

Consequent on Ext.P1 award, passed by the

third respondent, the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative

Societies, execution proceedings had been initiated and

the mortgaged property of the writ petitioner is brought

under sale, as per the sale notice dated 21.11.2006 of

Munsiff Court, Perinthalmanna. The plea of the writ

petitioner is that he may be given an opportunity to

challenge Ext.P1 award and till such time, the proposed

sale of his property may be kept in abeyance.

2. Ext.P1 award was passed on 12.5.2003.

Because of the non payment, the writ petitioner, who is

the surety to the principal debtor, was proceeded against,

including the sale of his property. The auction sale

notification was made on 21.11.2006. From 12.5.2003 till

21.11.2006, the writ petitioner, being the surety, had not

made any remittances. No permission of the Court is

required for filing a revision before the Tribunal, nor

the writ Court is within its power to interfere with the

W.P.(C).33262/2006

2

law of limitation.

3. In such circumstances, without making any

discussion on the merit of the matter, I direct the writ

petitioner to approach the appropriate forum and redress

his grievance. However, in order to enable the writ

petitioner to raise his contentions and to ascertain the

correct amount, due to the first respondent, bank, I

allow three weeks time to initiate appropriate remedy

before the proper forum. During the above period of

three weeks from today, there shall be no sale of the

execution property, scheduled on 18.12.2006.

4. However, I make it clear that if no orders are

obtained from the appropriate forum by the writ

petitioner within the above period of three weeks, the

Execution Court shall proceed with the matter, as per

the law.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Hand over.

J.M.JAMES

JUDGE

mrcs