Rajamma vs Rajani
2021 Latest Caselaw 8843 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

                                   &

                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

   WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                 RP.No.339 OF 2020 IN OP (FC). 136/2019

    AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP (FC)NO.136/2019 DATED 17.02.2020
                                 ------


REVIEW PETITIONER/S:

                RAJAMMA, AGED 66 YEARS,
                W/O. JANARDHANAN, RESIDING AT ASANTEPADEETTATHIL,
                ILIPPAKUAM MURI, ILIPPAKUAM P.O,
                VALLIKUNNAM VILLAGE, MAVELIKARA,
                ALAPPUZHA-690 509.

                BY ADVS.
                SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI
                SMT.SABINA JAYAN

RESPONDENT/S:

      1         RAJANI, AGED 33 YEARS,
                D/O. MANIYAMMA, RESIDING AT PUTHENVEETTIL,
                NJAKKANAL MURI, KRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE,
                NJAKKANAL P.O, ALAPPUZHA-690 533.

      2         MANUAL V.M, AGED 41 YEARS,
                S/O.MICHELE, RESIDING AT VALAYILKULAM VEEDU,
                ASRAMAM WARD, ARYANADU THEKKE MURI,
                ARYANADU THEKKE VILLAGE, AMBALAPUZHA,
                ALAPPUZHA-688 561.


THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.03.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 R.P.No.339/2020                      2



                                     ORDER

Dated this the 17th day of March 2021

A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.

This review petition arises from the judgment

of this Court dismissing a petition to set aside

the sale conducted in E.P.No.7/2014 in

O.P.No.1192/2008 on the file of the Family Court, Mavelikkara. The petitioner approached this Court

directly challenging the sale conducted in the

execution proceedings. This Court by a detailed

judgment, after adverting to all attending

circumstances, dismissed the original petition.

2. The proceedings relating to the sale of

immovable property and setting aside the sale are

envisaged under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

It may not be proper for this Court to invoke the

supervisory jurisdiction to interfere with the sale

in execution proceedings directly. Aggrieved is

free to move the execution court itself.

Therefore, any observation or finding in the

judgment will not stand in the way of the

petitioner in moving the execution court in

accordance with law, if any such right is available

to set aside the sale. We do not find any ground to

review the judgment.

With the above observations, this review

petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

JUDGE

Sd/-

C.S.DIAS

JUDGE

ln