IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
FAO.No. 128 of 2008()
1. MAMMU, S/O.LATE KUNHAHAMMED,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DECREE HOLDER NEDUNGADI BANK LTD.,
... Respondent
2. MURALEEDHARAN, S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR(LATE)
3. AUCTION PURCHASER V.RAJAGOPALAN,
4. SANTHOSH, AGED 28 YEARS,
5. SANKARI, W/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN,
6. AMMINI AMMA, W/O.LATE NARAYANAN NAIR,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD)
For Respondent :SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN
Dated :27/05/2009
O R D E R
P.R. RAMAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
F.A.O. 128 OF 2008
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
DATED THIS, THE 27TH DAY OF MAY, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
Raman, J.
Appellant is a third party to the execution proceeding. For realisation
of the decree debt, the Bank, as the decree holder, sought to execute the
decree against the judgment debtor. The property was put to auction. The
auction purchaser, who is the third respondent herein purchased the
property after depositing the bid amount. The decree holder has already
withdrawn the said amount. At that time, the appellant herein filed an
application under Order 21 Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure alleging
irregularity and fraud in the sale conducted. So long as the
petitioner/appellant was not a party to the proceeding, the petition was
found to be without any merit. Further, it was also found that no evidence
as such was adduced to substantiate the contention that there was any
irregularity or fraud in the matter of conduct of sale. The appellant
challenges the said order. According to him, some proceedings were
pending before the Appellate Authority as A.A.4/94 and the court below has
F.A.O. 128/2008 :2:
stayed the execution proceedings awaiting the decision in the appeal. But
later, all on a sudden it proceeded with the execution without awaiting for
the final disposal of the said appeal. This being the main grievance, this
Court directed the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal A.A. 4/94
within three weeks from the date of the said order. Now that the appeal
itself has been disposed of by dismissing the claim of the appellant herein
and a copy of the order passed by the Appellate Authority is also enclosed
along with the letter addressed to the Registrar.
2. In the above circumstances, the petitioner cannot be said to be
aggrieved by the execution proceedings without waiting for an order in the
appeal since the appellate order is against the appellant. Hence at this stage,
we find no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the same.
If the petitioner has got any independent right over the property
necessarily the present order will not in any way stand in his way of
establishing his right in accordance with law, at appropriate stage.
P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE.
P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE.
KNC/-