Mukundhan vs M.P George
2022 Latest Caselaw 2067 Ker

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 4TH PHALGUNA,
                                 1943
                    OP(C) NO. 376 OF 2022
         OS 680/2013 OF MUNSIFF COURT, CHERTHALA
PETITIONER/DECREE DEBTOR/DEFENDANT :

         MUKUNDHAN,
         S/O.KRISHNAN,
         AGED 65 YEARS,
         MADATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE,
         NIKARTHIL, VADAKKUMURRY,
         PADINJAATTUMKARA, KUTHIYATHODU VILLAGE,
         CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688533
         BY ADVS.
         R.DIVAKARAN
         BINOI GEORGE (CHERUKARA)
         U.S.SARITHA
         VISAKH K.P
         ANISHA M.
         HARIKRISHNAN V.A


RESPONDENT/DECREE HOLDER/PLAINTIFF :

         M.P GEORGE, S/O.POULOSE, AGED 63 YEARS,
         MALIYYEKKAL HOUSE, PACHALAM DESAM, PINCODE-
         682018, ERNAKULAM

     THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.02.2022,   THE   COURT   ON    THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 O.P.(C)No.376 of 2022
                                   ..2..




                         A.BADHARUDEEN, J.

        ------------------------------------------------------------
                        O.P.(C)No.376 of 2022
         ------------------------------------------------------------
          Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2022

                            JUDGMENT

This is an application filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India whereby, the petitioner seeks direction to

the learned Munsiff, Cherthala to consider Ext.P3 application

and also to stay the sale proposed to be held on 24.02.2022

after having published the notice on 03.02.2022.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on

admission.

3. When the learned counsel was asked as to

whether Order 21 Rule 66 notice was received, the learned

counsel submitted that he did not know. When he was asked

as to whether the petitioner filed any objection in response to

Order 21 Rule 66 notice, the learned counsel submitted that he O.P.(C)No.376 of 2022 ..3..

did not know. When the learned counsel was asked why the

petitioner not approached this Court till this date though the

sale proclamation was on 03.02.2022, no satisfactory

explanation given. Thus, it appears that a decree passed in a

suit of the year 2013 by way of compromise when put into

execution during 2016, the petitioner herein silently watched

the proceedings without paying even a single pie and now on

the penultimate day of the sale, he approached this Court with

prayer to stay the sale. As a last measure to address the

grievance of the petitioner by adjourning the sale, the learned

counsel was asked as to whether the petitioner is ready to

deposit a substantial amount covered by the decree within a

period of one month. The learned counsel not suggested any

substantial amount and he pressed for a blanket stay order.

Therefore, the petitioner's attitude cannot be justified in any

manner.

4. In view of the matter, I am not inclined to stay

the proceedings. The Execution Court can go on with sale of

the property as proposed. However, it is ordered that the O.P.(C)No.376 of 2022 ..4..

learned Munsiff, if not passed orders on Ext.P3, shall pass

orders on merits.

This original petition stands disposed of as above.

Registry is directed to forward a copy of this

judgment to the learned Munsiff, Cherthala for information and

compliance within seven days.

Sd/-

A.BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE rkj O.P.(C)No.376 of 2022 ..5..

APPENDIX

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE EXECUTION PETITION DATED 04.01.2016 Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AUCTION NOTICE DATED 3/2/2022 Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN E.A.NO.47/2022 IN E.P.NO.2/2016 IN OS NO.680/2013 DATED 16/2/2022