Kerala High Court
Sunitha. M.C vs Keezhur Edathil Kunhikrishnan ... on 3 January, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 13TH POUSHA, 1943
OP(C) NO. 2350 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 203/1985 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT /
COMMERCIAL COURT, THALASSERY
PETITIONER/PETITIONER/CLAIM PETITIONER/NON-PARTIES TO EP & OS:
SUNITHA. M.C.,
AGED 50 YEARS
D/O.KARUNAKARAN NAMBIAR, 'VINAYASREE',
KEEZHUR AMSOM, DESOM, P.O.KEEZHUR,
IRITTY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 703.
BY ADV RAJESH V.NAIR
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DECREE HOLDER:
1 KEEZHUR EDATHIL KUNHIKRISHNAN VAZHUNNAVAR,
AGED 87 YEARS
S/O.LATE KEEZHUR EDATHIL DEVAKI KUTTY AMMA,
RESIDING AT RAJAPURAM, CHOVVA, KANNUR-670 018.
2 M.P.MANOHARAN,
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O.KUNHIKANNAN NAMBIAR, RESIDING AT 'VINAYASREE',
KEEZHUR AMSOM, DESOM, P.O.KEEZHUR, IRITTY TALUK,
KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 703.
3 BHARATHI AMMA,
AGED 70 YEARS
D/O.LATE KEEZHUR EDATHIL DEVAKI AMMA,
RESIDINGA AT "SREENILAYAM", KEEZHUR AMSOM, DESOM,
P.O.KEEZHUR, IRITTY TALUK,
KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 703.
4 BHAVAM AMMA,
AGED 68 YEARS
D/O.LATE KEEZHUR EDATHIL DEVAKI AMMA,
RESIDING AT "SREE NILAYAM", KEEZHUR AMSOM, DESOM,
P.O.KEEZHUR, IRITTY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 703.
5 SREEMATHI AMMA,
AGED 67 YEARS
D/O.LATE KEEZHUR EDATHIL DEVAKI AMMA, ,
RESIDING AT SREE NILAYAM, KEEZHUR AMSOM, DESOM,
P.O.KEEZHUR, IRITTY TALUK,
KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 703.
O.P(C) NO.2350 OF 2021
-2-
6 RAJENDRAN VAZHUNNAVAR,
AGED 61 YEARS
S/O.LATE KEEZHUR EDATHIL DEVAKI AMMA,
RESIDING AT "SREE NILAYAM", KEEZHUR AMSOM, DESOM,
P.O.KEEZHUR, IRITTY TALUK,
KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 703.
7 SUDHAKARAN VAZHUNNAVAR,
AGED 59 YEARS
S/O.LATE KEEZHUR EDATHIL DEVAKI AMMA,
RESIDING AT "SREE NILAYAM", KEEZHUR AMSOM, DESOM,
P.O.KEEZHUR, IRITTY TALUK,
KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 703.
8 MANOJ VAZHUNNAVAR,
AGED 59 YEARS
S/O.LATE KEEZHUR EDATHIL DEVAKI AMMA,
RESIDING AT "SREE NILAYAM", KEEZHUR AMSOM, DESOM,
P.O.KEEZHUR, IRITTY TALUK,
KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 701.
BY ADVS.
ASHWIN SATHYANATH
M.RAMESH CHANDER (SR.)
BALU TOM
GOVIND G. NAIR
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
O.P(C) NO.2350 OF 2021
-3-
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2022
The petitioner, who has put up a claim petition,
E.A.No.208/2021 in an Original Suit filed during 1985
(O.S.No.203/1985), has approached this Court by filing this
petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, stating that
the commission application filed by the claim petitioner to identify
the property on the basis of a title deed of the year 1997 (after
the filing of the suit) was not considered by the trial court. The
main grievance of the petitioner is that the execution court has
been proceeding with the execution without considering the
commission application submitted by the claim petitioner.
2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, it is
submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that now the
court below heard the commission application and posted the
same for orders.
3. However, the learned counsel for the
respondents/decree holder would submit that a merit-less claim
petition was filed at a much belated stage while executing a
decree, in a suit of the year 1985, by the wife of the second
O.P(C) NO.2350 OF 2021
judgment debtor is the subject matter herein. According to him,
the intention is to drag the matter without effecting delivery. It is
further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that
the Original Suit, in fact, reached the Apex Court and the decree
had been confirmed by the Apex Court also.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that
an interim order passed by this Court on 07.12.2021, whereby the
proceedings in E.P.No.117/2020 has been kept on hold till Ext.P3
commission application filed by the petitioner would be
considered.
5. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the
respondents/decree holder that a direction may be given to the
execution court to expedite the execution proceedings.
6. Having considered the rival submissions, I have to
observe that if a claim petition is filed, it has to be adjudicated to
decide the claim based on evidence. It is true that, if a
commission application is filed, the court can very well allow it or
dismiss it after considering its merits and on hearing both sides.
Therefore, I am of the view that a direction can be given to the
execution court to consider Ext.P3 application purely on merits,
O.P(C) NO.2350 OF 2021
taking note of the fact that the claim petition was filed by the wife
of the second judgment debtor at a belated stage. Since the suit
is of the year 1985, there shall be a direction to the execution
court to expedite the disposal of the claim petition as well as the
execution petition within a period of three months from the date
of production of copy of this judgment or its receipt by the court.
The Registry is directed to forward copy of this judgment within
seven days for information and compliance.
This Original Petition (Civil) stands disposed of as above.
Sd/-
A.BADHARUDEEN
JUDGE
nkr
O.P(C) NO.2350 OF 2021
APPENDIX OF OP(C) 2350/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM PETITION IN EA
NO.208/2021 IN EP NO.117/2020 IN OS
203/1985 FILED BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL SUB
COURT, THALASSERY.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER IN EA NO.208/2021
IN EP NO.117/2020 IN OS 203/1985 FILED
BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,
THALASSERY.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION APPLICATION EA
NO.213/2021 IN EA NO.208/202 FILED BEFORE
THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, THALASSERY.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER IN EA NO.213/2021
FILED BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,
THALASSERY.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL
