IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 20684 of 2010(O)
1. T.R.VEERAKUMAR, LEKSHMI NIVAS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. REMANI THANKACHI,
... Respondent
2. RENUKA DEVI,
For Petitioner :SRI.BENOY K.KADAVAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :02/07/2010
O R D E R
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
====================================
W.P(C) No.20684 of 2010
====================================
Dated this the 02nd day of July, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Writ Petition is filed by the claim petitioner who is the
husband of respondent No.2/judgment debtor and who lost the
claim petition and whose appeal was returned for presentation in
the proper Forum. Respondent No.1 obtained a decree for
payment of money against respondent No.2 in O.S. No.465 of
1997. When respondent No.1 launched execution against
respondent No.2 and attempted to bring the property of
respondent No.2 (which was placed under attachment) to sale,
petitioner appeared with claim petition stating that as per
settlement deed No.3257 of 2000 he got right and title over a
portion of the property attached (5 cents in extent). Executing
court found that claim is not sustainable in so far as settlement
deed in favour of petitioner is after the attachment was made and
hence it does not bind respondent No.1. Claim petition was
dismissed. Matter was taken up in appeal before the learned
District Judge. Learned District Judge observed that since the
amount involved in the suit is more than Rs.2,00,000/- appeal will
W.P(C) No.20684 of 2010
-: 2 :-
not lie before that court in view of Section 13 of the Civil Courts
Act. Accordingly memorandum of appeal was returned for
presentation before proper Forum.
2. Learned counsel submits that petitioner is not
challenging the order of learned District Judge returning the
memorandum of appeal, in this proceeding. Hence it is not
necessary for me to go into the correctness of that order in this
proceeding.
3. Request made by learned counsel is that petitioner
may be permitted to pay the amount due in installments to save
the property covered by settlement deed No.3257 of 2000. But
since the claim petition has been dismissed and petitioner is not a
party to the execution proceedings request of petitioner cannot
be entertained.
4. At this stage learned counsel stated that respondent
No.2, wife of petitioner is prepared to pay the amount due under
the decree, given breathing time and is prepared to deposit
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) in the executing court
within fifteen days and pay the balance amount within three
months. Learned counsel states that property is scheduled to be
sold on 05.07.2010. Since respondent No.2 has not come up with
W.P(C) No.20684 of 2010
-: 3 :-
such a request I am unable to entertain the request made by the
petitioner. It will be open to respondent No.2 to make such a
request in the executing court and if any such request is made the
executing court will consider that request and pass appropriate
orders after hearing respondent No.1 as well, in accordance with
law.
Writ Petition is closed with the above observation.
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.
vsv
