IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 556 of 2009()
1. K.KUTTAN,S/O. KARUMBAN, AGED 70
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LIMITED
... Respondent
2. LEELA K.W/O. KUTTAN, 'KARTHIKA'
3. RAJENDRAN, S/O. GOVINDAN, KADUVINAL P.O.
4. REJI UMMAN, S/O.UMMAN, AGE NOT KNOWN TO
For Petitioner :SRI.DR. V.N. SANKARJEE
For Respondent :SRI.V.J.JAMES
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :22/12/2009
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
-------------------------------
C.R.P.NO.556 OF 2009 (A)
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2009
O R D E R
Revision is directed against the order in E.A.No.152 of
2002 in E.A.No.1 of 2009 in E.P.No.50 of 2003 in A.P.No.214
of 2001 on the file of the Additional District Court, Alappuzha.
Petitioner is the 2nd judgment debtor in the above execution
proceedings, which relate to the execution of an award passed
in an arbitration proceedings numbered as A.P.No.214 of
2001. In execution of that award, a property belonging to the
judgment debtor was brought to sale and purchased in auction
by the 4th respondent. After confirmation of the sale, a
petition was moved by the 2nd judgment debtor under Section
47 of the Code of Civil Procedure contending that the
application by the auction purchaser for delivery of the
property was barred by limitation. The court below, after
hearing both sides, found that the sale was confirmed only on
25.9.2008 and the petition for delivery was filed within the
CRP.556/09 2
time. In that view of the matter, the court found that the plea
canvassed that it was barred by limitation is unsustainable.
Perusing the impugned order with reference to the
submissions made by the counsel on both sides, the learned
counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel
appearing for the 4th respondent, I find that there is no
infirmity in the order passed by the court below. Revision
lacks merit, and it is dismissed.
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
JUDGE
prp