IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2008 / 29TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 25157 OF 2008(T) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED IN EA 219/07 IN EP.24/2005 OF SUB COURT, KATTAPPANA .................... PETITIONER: ------------ POABS ENTERPRISES (P) LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI. P.A. JACOB, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O P.O. ABRAHAM, KUTTOOR, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.JAMES KOSHY RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. KERALA CARDAMOM PROCESSING AND MARKETING COMPANY LIMITED (KCPMC LTD), REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, SPICES HOUSE, THEKKEDAY P.O. 2. RAM BAHADUR THAKUR LTD. (RBT LTD.), OFFICE AT THITHWARPUR KOTHI, SANSTIPUR DISTRICT, BIHAR, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE, R.B.T. LTD, SIDHARTH BUILDING, P.B.NO.583, D MAIN ROAD, WILLINGTON ISLAND, KOCHI-3. 3. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER AND RECOVERY OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, CHALAKKUZHY BUILDING, CMS COLLEGE ROAD, B.B. NO.36, KOTTAYAM-686001. BY ADV. SRI.JOY THATTIL FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) NO. 25157 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 20th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the petitioner in E.A.207 of 2008 in E.P.24 of 2005 on the file of Sub Court, Kattappana. It is an application filed under Section 47 of Rule 97 and 99 of Order XXI of Code of Civil Procedure. Case of the petitioner is that for the amount due to the Provident Fund third respondent Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, sold the property of the second respondent and purchased by the petitioner and without disclosing the said charge and the sale, the said property was sold in execution of the decree obtained by first respondent against second respondent and on coming to know about the fact petitioner filed E.A.207 of 2008 and it is pending. It was contended that Sub Court, Kattappana may be directed not to give delivery of the property and a direction also be issued to dispose Ext.P13 application. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner was heard. 3. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for WP(C)25157/08 2 petitioner is that there is a first charge for the amount due to the third respondent and petitioner being the purchaser in the sale for realisation of amount due to third respondent, cannot be dispossessed in execution of the decree obtained by first respondent against second respondent and therefore learned Sub Judge is to be directed to dispose of E.A.207 of 2008 before allowing the delivery of the property. There is force in the submission of the petitioner. 4. The writ petition is therefore disposed directing the Sub Judge, Kattappana to dispose Ext.P13 application as expeditiously as possible and not to order delivery of the property before disposing Ext.P13 application. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE Okb/-