IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2009 / 15TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 13765 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AS.19/2007 of SUB COURT, TIRUR ARC.2851/2006 of MUNSIFF'S COURT, PARAPPANANGADI (EP. 608 /2007) .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- PAREECHENTE PURAKKAL HAMZA, AGED 61, S/O.KUNHAHAMMED, PARAPPANANGADI AMSOM DESOM, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. CHETTIPURATH PAREECHENTE PURAKKAL SAIDALAVI, S/O.KUNHAHAMMED, PARAPPANANGADI AMSOM AND DESOM, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. SECRETARY, PARAPPANANGADI CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. ANGAMANTE PURAKKAL MOHAMMED, S/O.BEERAN KUTTY, ANGAMANTE PURAKKAL HOUSE, SADDAM BEACH, P.O.PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R1 BY ADV. MR.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL R2 BY ADVS.MR.K.P.SUDHEER, SMT.P.JAYALAKSHMI. R3 BY ADV.MR.K.MUHAMMED SALAHUDHEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.13765/2009 O APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE DECREE. P2: COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.635 OF 2007 IN A.S.NO.19/2007. P3: COPY OF THE SALE PROCLAMATION. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 13765 OF 2009 O ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 6th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: “(i) to call for the records leading to EP.No.206/07 of the Munsiff Court, Parappanangadi in ARC No.2851/06. (ii) In the alternative, to stay the entire proceedings in EP.No.608/07 In ARC.No.2851/06 of the Munsiff Court, Tirur pending consideration of AS.No.19/07 of the Sub Court, Tirur.” 2. Pursuant to default committed by the 1st respondent, the brother of the petitioner, in respect of loan availed from the 2nd respondent, a property having an extent of 10 cents comprising a building in R.S.No.280/5 of Parappanangadi Panchayat was brought to sale in execution, and in the auction conducted the 3rd respondent purchased that property. The case of the petitioner is that the 1st petitioner, his brother, has no absolute right over the property, in which he has also some right and interest and so much so, the entire proceedings taken in execution for sale of the property is vitiated and liable to be set aside. It is the admitted WPC.13765/09 : 2 : case of the petitioner that the 1st respondent had instituted a suit against him as OS.No.75/00 for evicting him from the building in the property. An ex parte decree was passed in the suit. Though a delivery note was obtained by the 1st respondent, he continued in occupation of the building, according to the petitioner. The 1st respondent, later, filed another suit as O.S.No.136/05 before the Munsiff Court, Parappanangadi to evict him from the building and that was also decreed. Against the decision in the above suit, the petitioner had preferred an appeal as A.S.No.19/07 before the Sub Court, Tirur, in which a stay of execution of the decree of the trial court had been passed, and it is in force. So much so, at least till a decision is taken in the appeal, the entire execution proceedings taken by the 2nd respondent in E.P.No.608/07 in ARC.2851/07 as against the 1st respondent should be stayed, is the sum and substance of the relief claimed by the petitioner by filing this writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the counsel on both sides. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, it has to be pointed out that the WPC.13765/09 : 3 : petitioner is incompetent to invoke the jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. His remedy, if any, is to approach the execution court to establish his right, title and possession, if any, over the said property. Producing Ext.P3 i.e, proclamation of sale settled by the court under Rule 66 CPC, the petitioner has moved this writ petition to impeach the execution proceedings taken by the 2nd respondent bank to realise the decree debt due from the 1st respondent which was provided under the award passed in an arbitration contemplated by the Co- operative Socieities Act and Rules. It is admitted that after the settlement of proclamation, sale was conducted and the property was purchased by the 3rd respondent. When that be so, a challenge to the execution proceedings on the basis of Ext.P3 proclamation of settling the sale needless to point is unworthy of any merit. Leaving the petitioner to work out his remedies, if any, by approaching the execution court, if so advised, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE) aks