High Court Kerala High Court

Raveendran Nair vs Sadasivan on 16 September, 2010

Kerala High Court
Raveendran Nair vs Sadasivan on 16 September, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 7407 of 2010(O)


1. RAVEENDRAN NAIR
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SADASIVAN, S/O.KANNU NADAR
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.G.SUDHEER

                For Respondent  :SRI.S.K.VINOD

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH

 Dated :16/09/2010

 O R D E R
                    THOMAS P JOSEPH, J.

                   ----------------------------------------

                      W.P.C.No.7407 of 2010

                   ---------------------------------------

             Dated this 16th day of September, 2010

                             JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed by the judgment debtor in

E.P.No.161 of 2004 of the court of learned Additional Munsiff-I,

Neyyattinkkara where an award in A.R.C.No.29 of 2001 is being

executed against petitioner. Property of petitioner was sold in

auction on 03-01-2009 and purchased by the respondent.

Petitioner filed E.A.No.438 of 2009 to set aside the sale. That

application was dismissed by the executing court on the ground

of limitation. In the meantime, it is contended that petitioner paid

the entire decree amount to the respondent and settled the case.

Petitioner filed E.A.No.691 of 2001 under Order 47 of the Code of

Civil Procedure to set aside the sale on the ground of nullity.

That application was dismissed by the executing court as per

Ext.P5 dated 26-10-2009 which is under challenge in this writ

petition.

2. Parties have filed compromise petition vide

I.A.No.12529 of 2010 signed by them and counsel. In the

compromise petition it is stated that entire amount due to the

respondent/decree holder has paid and respondent has no objection

W.P.C.No.7407 of 2010
: 2 :

in allowing E.A.No.691 of 2009 and setting aside the sale as nullity.

Learned counsel on both sides requested that judgment may be

passed in terms of compromise.

3. I heard counsel on both sides. I have perused records

as well as compromise petition. I find no reason why request shall

not be allowed.

Resultantly this writ petition is allowed in the following lines:

(i) The compromise effected between the parties is

accepted and recorded and the writ petition is

allowed in terms of compromise.

(ii) E.A.No.691 of 2009 in E.P.No.161 of 2004

of the court of learned Additional Munsiff-I,

Neyyattinkkara will stand allowed and consequently

sale of schedule property held on 03-01-2009 will

stand set aside as null and void.

(THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE)

Sbna/-

True Copy

P.A to Judge