K.E.George vs M.K.Reghu on 5 January, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 33702 of 2006(K)


1. K.E.GEORGE, AGED 38, S/O.EASY,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. K.E.SEVY, S/O.EASY, AGED 30 YEARS,

                        Vs



1. M.K.REGHU, AGED 67,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :05/01/2007

 O R D E R
                   M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

       ...........................................

                    W.P.(C)No.33702 OF 2006

       ............................................

          DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2007



                             JUDGMENT

Petitioners are defendants in O.S.288 of 2005 on

the file of Additional Munsiff Court, Kochi. Respondent

is the plaintiff. Respondent instituted the suit in

respect of a bus. According to the respondent he is the

owner of the bus and according to the petitioners they

are the owners of the bus. First petitioner is the

registered owner of the vehicle. According to

respondent as per the sale agreement, he is the owner.

The genuineness of the sale agreement was disputed.

Respondent filed I.A.2496 of 2005, an application under

Order XL Rule 1 to appoint a Receiver to the bus.

Under Ext.P3 order learned Munsiff allowed the

application and appointed first petitioner, the

registered owner, as the Receiver. Petitioner

challenged that order before Sub Court, Kochi in CMA 7

of 2006. Under Ext.P4 order, confirming Ext.P3 order

appeal was dismissed. It is challenged in this petition

filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India.

2. Argument of the learned counsel appearing for

WP(C)33702/2006 2

petitioner was that as the first petitioner is the

registered owner of the bus and the suit is only for

mandatory injunction, no Receiver should have been

appointed and hence the orders are to be quashed.

3. On hearing learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners, I do not find any reason to interfere with

Exts.P3 and P4 orders in exercise of the extra ordinary

jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of

Constitution of India. The dispute is with regard to

the genuineness of the sale agreement. If in the suit

it is found that sale agreement is genuine and valid,

then first petitioner cannot claim any right on the

vehicle. On the other hand if the sale agreement is

found to be not executed by the first petitioner,

respondent cannot claim any right over the bus. The

question whether the agreement is genuine or not is to

be decided in the suit. In such circumstances, I do

not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent

order, as by the order first petitioner was not being

dispossessed. At best it could be said that he is

liable to account for the vehicle. The order is

perfectly legal and regular. In such circumstances, the

WP(C)33702/2006 3

discretion rightly exercised by the trial court and

confirmed by the appellate court, warrant, no

interference. The writ petition is dismissed.

Petitioners are granted ten days time from today to

execute the bond as directed by the learned Munsiff

under Ext.P3 order.

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE

lgk/-