IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2010 / 22ND ASWINA 1932 CRP.No. 81 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29/11/2008 IN EA.242/04 IN EP.76/00 IN EP.111/04 IN OS.2374/1998 of MUNI-MAGI.COURT,PONNANI .................... REVN. PETITIONER/PETITIONER: --------------------- KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION,REP.BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.S.VAIDYANATHAN SRI.P.PRIJITH SRI.R.S.KALKURA SC FOR KFC RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------- * 1. PRABHAKRAN,AGED 65,(FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN) PARVATHI NILAYAM,1/203,AYYANTHOLE, THRUSSUR-1. (DIED) 2. E.SAVITHRI,AGED 63,W/O.PRABHAKARAN, PARVATHI NILAYAM,1/203, AYYANTHOLE,THRISSUR-1. 3. M/S.WARRIAR HERBAL PRODUCTS LTD, VATTAMKULAM P.O,MUDUR,MALAPPURAM 4. THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, C.P NO.8 OF 2000,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADDL R5: RUDRA KUMAR, S/o. LATE PRABHAKARAN PARVATHY NILAYAM, 1/203, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR ( *- IMPLEADED AS ADDL R5 AS PER ORDER DATED 20-08-2009 ON I.A.1688/09) ADV. SRI.R.RAMADAS FOR R1 & 2 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.81of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 14th day of October, 2010 ORDER This revision is in challenge of the order on E.A.No.242 of 2004 in E.P.No.76 of 2000 in O.S.No.2374 of 1998 of the court of learned Munsiff-Magistrate, Ponnani. Respondent No.3 created equitable mortgage in respect of 1.07acres of land with building and machineries thereon in favour of petitioner by deposit of title deeds on 20-11-1993 and availed a loan. Since respondent No.3 committed consecutive default in payment of the amount, petitioner made a request to the District Collector on 08-10-2003 for recovery of the amount due. Petitioner then learned that the property was sold in court auction in O.S.No.2374 of 1998. Challenging that court sale petitioner filed E.A.No.242 of 2004. That application was dismissed on the ground of limitation. Though the application was purportedly filed under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”) was found to be one under Order XXI Rule 90 of that Code, filed beyond 60 days from the date of sale and barred under Article 127 of the Limitation Act and accordingly dismissed the application as time barred. That order is under challenge in this revision. C.R.P.No.81 of 2009 : 2 : 2. When this matter is taken up today for hearing it is submitted by learned counsel on both sides that the impugned sale has been set aside by the company court as per order dated 27-09- 2010 in company application No.136 of 2009 in C.P.No.8 of 2000 for the reason that sale was conducted without permission from the company court. Now that the sale impugned in this proceeding no more stands on account of the order of the company court, this petition has become infructuous. This petition is dismissed as infructuous directing the parties to bear their respective costs. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-