IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 827 of 2008()
1. KIZHAKKE KODIYATH RANJITH,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. CHEMMANCHERRY PUTHIYA VEETTIL JANAKI,
... Respondent
2. CHEMMANCHERRY PUTHIYA VEETTIL KUNHIRAMAN
3. CHEMMANCHERRY PUTHIYA VEETTIL
4. CHEMMANCHERRY PUTHIYA VEETTIL RAGHAVAN,
5. CHEMMANCHERRY PUTHIYA VEETTIL KRISHNAN,
6. CHEMMANCHERRY PUTHIYA VEETTIL
7. CHAMMANCHERRY PUTHIYA VEETTIL
8. MAYILAPPALLI PAYYADAKATH KUNHIKANNAN,
9. MAYILAPPALLI PAYYADAKATH RAGHAVAN,
10. MAYILAPPALLI PAYYADAKATH BALAKRISHNAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN
Dated :18/11/2008
O R D E R
K.P. BALACHANDRAN, J.
-------------------------------------
C.R.P No. 827 of 2008
------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of November, 2008
ORDER
Petitioner is the son of the 3rd J.D in O.S. No.170 of 1990. He
filed E.A. No.246 of 2008 in E.P. No.57 of 2008 in the aforesaid suit
for getting himself impleaded as an additional J.D. That petition was
dismissed by the execution court vide order dated 24/09/2008. He filed
this C.R.P for assailing the correctness of the said order.
2. Heard counsel for the petitioner. He submits that father of
the petitioner has transferred to him under document No.1279 of 2008
of S.R.O., Payyannur, two items of properties that belonged to him and
Item No.2 therein is the decree schedule property and therefore, he may
also be impleaded as J.D. on the execution side allowing E.A. No.246
of 2008.
3. It is worthy to note that the suit is of the year 1990. The
petitioner is none other than the son of Sri. Raghavan Nambiar, 3rd J.D
in O.S. No.170 of 1990. He is transferee pendente lite of the schedule
property from his father, 3rd judgment debtor. The petitioner is
C.R.P No. 827 /2008
2
therefore, bound by the decree being 3rd party, who has acquired rights
if any pending suit. He has no right to raise objection to the decree in
execution. He has sought impleadment on the execution side only to
protract and delay the execution of the decree. The executing court is
not entitled to go behind the decree and has rightly found that the
petitioner is not entitled to get himself impleaded in the execution
petition.
In the circumstance, the C.R.P is dismissed.
K.P. BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE
scm