IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 32749 of 2009(O)
1. P.GOPALAN, S/O.PALANISWAMI CHETTIAR
... Petitioner
Vs
1. P.VIJAYAKUMAR, S/O.MADHAVAN
... Respondent
2. THE MANAGER
For Petitioner :SRI.C.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :16/11/2009
O R D E R
S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No.32749 of 2009
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated: 16th November, 2009
JUDGMENT
The Writ Petition is filed seeking mainly the following relief:
“To direct the Sub Court to extent the execution proceedings
until disposal of the case before the Supreme Court.”
2. Petitioner is a defaulter against the second respondent-
Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd. In execution of the arbitration award
passed in favour of the bank, property of the petitioner was brought
to sale negativing the objections challenging the executability of the
award by the petitioner/judgment debtor. Pendency of a Special
Leave Petition challenging the executability of the award, which had
been repelled by the execution court and also this court, was
canvassed for keeping in abeyance the delivery of the property sold
in execution. The execution court has granted 45 days time to the
petitioner on his application to produce order, if any, for avoiding
delivery. After the expiry of the period so extended by the execution
court, the writ petition has been filed to keep in abeyance further
proceedings till disposal of the Special Leave Petition before the apex
court.
W.P.C.No.32749/09 – 2 –
3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to
the submissions made, I find no notice to the respondents is
necessary and it is dispensed with. Petitioner has no case that leave
has been granted by the apex court. In the previous writ petition filed
by him numbered as W.P.(C) No.17728 of 2009 taking note of the
decision rendered by the apex court in Kunhayammed v. State of
Kerala (AIR 2000 S.C. 2587) it has been held that in the absence of
leave granted for entertaining his Special Leave Petition, no direction
can be issued preventing the auction purchaser from getting delivery
of the property after issue of the sale certificate in his favour. The
execution court has already extended sufficient time to the petitioner
vide P3 order. There is no merit in the writ petition, and it is
dismissed.
srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE