Kerala High Court
Sulaiman vs Sharina on 2 February, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 13TH MAGHA, 1943
OP (FC) NO. 484 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP 588/2010 OF FAMILY COURT,
PALAKKAD
PETITIONER:
SULAIMAN, AGED 70 YEARS, S/O KATTUBAVA RAWTHAR,
PERUVAYAL VEEDU, AAYAKADU, VADAKKENCHERRY, ALATHUR
TALUK, PALAKKAD-678 683.
BY ADVS.
SAIJO HASSAN
BENOJ C AUGUSTIN
RAFEEK. V.K.
P.PARVATHY
NAZRIN HALLAJ
SHILPA M.RAJAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 SHARINA, D/O SULAIMAN, PALATHARA VEEDU,
THOLANNUR POST, ALATHUR TALUK,PALAKKAD-678722,
REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER B. NAYANAR,
(AADHAR CARD NO.5873 3535 2466), AGED 78 YEARS,
SON OF BAVUKUTTY RAWTHER, RESIDING AT THARUMANNIL
HOUSE, THOLANUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 722, KERALA.
2 JASMINE, AGED 31 YEARS, D/0 SULAIMAN, PALATHARA
VEEDU,THOLANNUR POST, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD-678722,
REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER B. NAYANAR,
(AADHAR NO.587335352466), S/O. BAVUKUTTY RAWTHER, AGED
79 YEARS, RESIDING AT THARUMANNIL HOUSE, THOLANUR P.O.,
ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 722, KERALA,
INDIA.
BY ADV P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD)
OP (FC) NO. 484 OF 2021
2
THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
02.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP (FC) NO. 484 OF 2021
3
J U D G M E N T
A. Muhamed Mustaque, J
This original petition was filed by the judgment
debtor challenging an order of delivery by break open, in
an execution proceedings. According to the petitioner the
delivery ordered is without adverting to the objection of
the judgment debtor in regard to the limitation involved.
It is also submitted that the judgment debtor also filed an
application to set aside the sale.
2. The confirmation of the sale was on 11.12.2018.
The petitioner would submit that the delivery was sought
only after one year period of the confirmation of the sale
and therefore, such delivery is hit by Article 134 of the
Limitation Act.
3. We are now called upon to decide the question of
limitation in a proceedings invoked under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India. It is appropriate that the
petitioner raises his objection before the Execution Court
in regard to delivery. This objection shall be considered
before proceeding further. If any application has been
filed for setting aside the sale that also shall be
considered. Till consideration of the applications and
OP (FC) NO. 484 OF 2021
objections as above, we order that further proceedings in
delivery be kept in abeyance.
This original petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
JUDGE
Sd/-
SOPHY THOMAS
JUDGE
PR
OP (FC) NO. 484 OF 2021
APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 484/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.03.2019 IN
MAT.APPEAL NO.150 OF 2014.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 24.05.2015
EVIDENCING DEPOSIT OF RS.1,50,000/-.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.11.2018 IN
E.A.101/2019 IN E.P.NO.11/2014 IN
O.P.NO.588/2010 ON FILE OF FAMILY COURT,
PALAKKAD.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.12.2018 IN
E.P.NO.11/2014 IN O.P.NO.588/2010 ON FILE OF
FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE
RESPONDENTS FOR AMENDMENT OF THE ORDER.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED AS E.A.NO.48
OF 2021 IN E.P.NO.11/2014 IN O.P.NO.588 OF
2010.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER IN E.A.NO.48 OF 2021 IN
E.P.NO.11/2014 IN O.S.N9O.588/2010.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER AS REFLECTED IN THE A-
DIARY OF THE COURT BELOW.
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN AND SPECIFICATIONS OF
THE PROPERTY.
