IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 30387 of 2008(P)
1. V.P.DAVIS, S/O PAULOSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. FEDERAL BANK LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. A.A. MUHAMMED HANEEFA, S/O ABOOBAKKAR,
3. M.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, S/O AYYAPPAKUTTY,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :16/10/2008
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(c).No.30387 of 2008
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 16th day of October, 2008
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is the claimant in a claim petition filed as
E.A.No.1084 of 2005 in E.P.No.434 of 2003 in O.S.No.1051 of
2001 on the file of the Sub Court, Thrissur. In the said suit the
1st respondent herein brought the property attached in execution
of the decree passed against respondents 2 and 3 herein.
According to the petitioner, he had a prior attachment of the
same property in his favour and he filed the said E.A.No.1084 of
2005 for lifting the attachment obtained by the 1st respondent.
E.A.No.1084 of 2005 was dismissed stating that no evidence was
adduced by the petitioner herein in support of the petition. The
grievance of the petitioner is that he was denied an opportunity
to adduce evidence in support of the the E.A. Aggrieved by the
dismissal of the said E.A., the petitioner filed W.P.(c).No.26278
of 2005 before this Court. As per Ext.P1 judgment dated 5.9.05
this Court refused the interference holding that the remedy of
the petitioner was to seek a review of the order. The petitioner
W.P.(c).No.30387of 2008
2
thereupon filed E.A.No.1711 of 2005 (Ext.P2) seeking review of
the order dismissing E.A.No.1084 of 2005. The petitioner also
claims to have filed Ext.P3 petition E.A.No.1710 of 2005 for a
stay of all further proceedings in execution of decree in
O.S.No.1051 of 2001. The present grievance of the petitioner is
that keeping Exts.P2 and P3 petitions pending, the Executing
Court on 25.09.08 has confirmed the sale. He, therefore, seeks a
direction to dispose of Ext.P2 review petition expeditiously.
2. In the light of the observations in Ext.P1 judgment it is
only fair and proper that the Executing Court disposes of Ext.P2
review petition.
This writ petition is disposed of directing the Sub Court,
Thrissur to dispose of Ext.P2 review petition (E.A.No.1711/2005)
in E.A.No.1084 of 2005 in E.P.No.434 of 2003 in O.S.No.1051 of
2001, expeditiously, after hearing both sides and at any rate
within two months of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Until
the disposal of Ext.P2 review petition, issuance of sale sannad
and consequential proceedings shall stand stayed.
Dated this the 16th day of October, 2008.
V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE
sj