IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2011 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1933 OP(C).No. 1431 of 2011(O) --------------------------------- PETITIONER ------------------- SUDINA, AGED 41 YEARS, D/O.SHAMSUDEEN, SUDINA MANZIL, PERIYA VEETIL, THANARAKKULAM, KOLLAM-691 001. BY ADVS. SRI.V.JAYAPRADEEP SMT. SADHANA KUMARI ESWARI SMT. RISANI V.V. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. MUTHOOT LEASING & FINANCE LTD., MUTHOOT CHAMBERS, KURIAN TOWER, BANERJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682 031, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SUBAH.S. 2. SHAJAHAN, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O.IBRAHIMKUTTY, SHAJAHAN MANZIL, RAMANKULANGARA, KOLLAM-691 011, WORKING AS CLERK, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, SULTHANBETHERY, WAYANAD. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SMT K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------ O.P(C)No.1431 OF 2011 ------------------------------ Dated this the 8 th day of April, 2011 JUDGMENT The prayer in the Original Petition is to quash Ext.P1 sale proclamation issued in E.P.No.9 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the 3 rd Additional District Judge (Wakaf Tribunal), Kollam. 2. It is stated that the first respondent obtained an Arbitration Award for realisation of amounts due. The petitioner and the second respondent are shown as judgment debtors. However, it is contended that the petitioner did not receive any notice in the arbitration proceedings. It is stated that she also did not receive any notice in the Execution Petition. According to the petitioner, there were disputes between her and her husband, the second respondent. Those disputes were settled before the Family Court. The marriage was divorced by pronouncing talak. It was also O.P(C)No.1431 OF 2011 2 agreed to pay certain amounts to the petitioner. One item of immovable property belonged to the petitioner and the second respondent. It is stated that the second respondent agreed to relinquish his one half right in favour of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, it is that item of immovable property which is sought to be sold as per Ext.P1 sale proclamation. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Arbitration Award was passed on account of fraud perpetrated by the second respondent. The petitioner intends to challenge the Arbitration Award. It is stated that meanwhile, if the immovable property belonging to the petitioner is sold in court auction, she would be put to irreparable injury. Therefore, the petitioner prayed for quashing Ext.P1. 4. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the Arbitration Award, which is sought to be executed O.P(C)No.1431 OF 2011 3 in E.P.No.9 of 2009, she has legal remedies. She cannot straight away approach the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and pray for setting aside Ext.P1. The reliefs prayed for cannot be granted. Accordingly, the Original petition is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms