IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2010 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 OP(C).No. 940 of 2010(O) ------------------------ OS.322/1988 of PRL.SUB COURT,KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER ------------------------ ELAINE SINGLETON, W/O.LATE JOHN ISSAC, ST.CATHERLINE, ONATARIO, CANADA, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY MRS.MERCY GEEVARGHESE, W/O.P.T.GEEVARGHESE, PATHICHERIL HOUSE, VADAVATHOOR, MANGANAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.ALEX.M.SCARIA SRI.SAJEEVAN KURUKKUTTIYULLATHIL RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. MR.GEORGE ISSAC, S/O.P.V.ISSAC, PALATHINKAL HOUSE, T.B.ROAD, KOTTAYAM-686 001. 2. MRS.MARY ROY, D/o. LATE P V ISSAC, CORPUS CHRIST HIGH SCHOOL, KOTTAYAM-686 010. 3. MRS.M.A.JOSEPH, D/O.LATE P.V.ISSAC, RESIDING AT I D MAYFLOWER-10, IST HANDDOWS STREET, OFF HADDOWS ROAD, CHENNAI-600 031. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P(C).No.940 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 01st day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT Additional defendant No.5 in O.S.No.323 of 1988 of the court of learned Principal Sub Judge, Kottayam represented by her power of attorney is the petitioner before me. That was a suit for partition. Additional defendant No.5 was represented in the trial side, learned counsel submits though her power of attorney holder and the power of attorney was produced on the trial side. Since in the execution proceedings there was a contention that the power of attorney allegedly executed by additional defendant No.5 was not produced (in the execution court) petitioner is said to have obtained the power of attorney from the trial side and produced in the executing court. While so, respondent No.1 filed E.A.No.96 of 2010 to permit deposit of `.26.15 lakhs to release charge over plaint D schedule property therein. While considering that application, executing court passed Ext.P5, order directing that share of the amount payable to petitioner-additional defendant No.5 will be considered after disposal of the petition filed by petitioner/additional defendant No.5 for acceptance of power of attorney. Learned counsel submits that based on the very same O.P(C).No.940 of 2010 : 2 : power of attorney petitioner/additional defendant No.5 was allowed to take delivery of the property and her power of attorney was allowed to represent her in the trial of case. As such there is merit in the objection raised by judgment debtor No.1, it is contended. 2. On going through Ext.P5, order I do not find nothing against petitioner/additional defendant No.5. Executing court has only stated that since application has been filed by petitioner for acceptance of power of attorney the share due to her in the amount deposited by respondent No.1 shall be decided after disposal of that application for acceptance of power of the attorney. If petitioner has a case that based on the same power of attorney she was permitted to take part in the proceedings of the trial side and to take delivery of her share of the property, it is open to the petitioner to point out those facts while her application is being considered by the executing court. Executing court is directed to expedite disposal of the application for acceptance of power of attorney. This petition is disposed of with the above direction. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-