IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 OP(C).No. 914 of 2010(O) -------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN E.A NO.115 OF 2009 IN E P NO.534/2007 IN OS.772/2002 of I ADDL.SUB COURT, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER: --------------------- VISWAMBARAN, AGED 46, S/O. VELAYUDHAN, KOZHISSERY HOUSE, KARYAVATTOM POST, PIN-680 567, VALAPPAD VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR), SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. INDEX CHITS AND FINANCE (P) LTD. NATTIKA VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATTIKA PO, THRISSUR DISTRICT PIN-680 566. 2. MANI, W/O. MEENAKUMAR, KANJIRAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KARYAVATTOM P.O., VALAPPAD VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK-680 506. 3. MEENAKUMAR, KANJIRAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KARYAVATTOM.P.O., VALAPPAD VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK-680 506. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P(C).No.914 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 30th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT Respondent No.1 has obtained a decree for recovery of money against respondent Nos.2 and 3 in O.S.No.772 of 2002 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Thrissur. Respondent No.1 launched execution by filing E.P.No.534 of 2007. While so, petitioner filed Ext.P2, claim petition under Rule 58 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure claiming that he has purchased the property which is being proceeded against from respondent No.2 on 31-03-2004 and that attachment was effected on that property only on 15-01-2008. Petition was opposed by respondent No.1 contending that there was an attachment ordered on 24-09-2002 on I.A.No.3708 of 2002 and that respondent Nos.2 and 3 appeared in the case on 02-11-2002 and requested time to file objection to the application for attachment. Attachment was made absolute on 02-06-2003 but, respondent No.1 suspected that there was some fraud play as necessary entries were not made in the relevant records. It is also contended by respondent No.1 that alleged transfer in favour of petitioner is fraudulent and was intended to defeat his claim against respondent Nos.2 and 3. O.P(C).No.914 of 2010 : 2 : Grievance of petitioner is that without disposing of Ext.P2, claim petition the court is proceeding to conduct sale of the suit property. 2. If Ext.P2, claim petition is pending it has to be disposed of as provided under law before sale of the property is ordered. Hence I direct learned Sub Judge to dispose of Ext.P2, claim petition (if it is not already disposed of) before the court proceeds with sale of the property. This petition is disposed of with the above direction. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-