High Court Kerala High Court

V.K.Karthiyayani Aged 47 Years vs The Secretary on 13 December, 2010

Kerala High Court
V.K.Karthiyayani Aged 47 Years vs The Secretary on 13 December, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP(C).No. 407 of 2010(O)


1. V.K.KARTHIYAYANI AGED 47 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. K.DASAN AGED 52 YEARS,S/O.CHANDU

                        Vs



1. THE SECRETARY,CANNANORE CO-OPERATIVE
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL

                For Respondent  :SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH

 Dated :13/12/2010

 O R D E R
                 THOMAS P JOSEPH, J.

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

                    O.P(C).No.407 of 2010

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

            Dated this 13th day of December, 2010

                           JUDGMENT

Respondent appears through counsel.

2. This petition is filed by petitioners challenging order

passed by learned Sub Judge, Thalassery on 19-11-2010 directing

delivery of property to the respondent in execution of the award

in A.R.C.No.1917/04-05. Property was sold in auction and

respondent filed Ext.P1, E.P.No.434 of 2006 for delivery of

property invoking Rule 95 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil

Procedure. That petition was resisted by petitioners on the

ground that sale was effected on 27-08-2008 and the same was

confirmed on 29-10-2008 but, Ext.P1, E.P.No.64 of 2010 was

filed after one year of confirmation of the sale and hence is

barred by limitation under Article 134 of the Limitation Act.

Grievance of petitioners is that executing court without

considering the objection passed Ext.P3, order for delivery of

property.

3. I have heard learned counsel for respondent also. It is

seen from Ext.P2 that petitioner has raised certain objections

regarding maintainability of E.P.No.64 of 2010. Learned counsel

O.P(C).No.407 of 2010
: 2 :

for petitioner has referred me to various decisions in support of

his contention. But, it is not necessary for me to go into that

question. Executing court has not decided the question. It is seen

from Ext.P3, order that executing court has not considered the

objection raised in Ext.P2. In that circumstances Ext.P3, order

cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.

Resultantly this petition is allowed and order dated

19-11-2010 directing delivery of property is set aside. Executing

court shall consider Ext.P2, objection and pass appropriate

orders after hearing both parties.

(THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE)

Sbna/-