IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 3RD APRIL 2009 / 13TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 10974 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN EA 1177/2006 IN EP 118/2001 IN OS.441/1996 of PRL.SUB COURT,IRINJALAKUDA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- MADHAVAN S/O. KAITHAVALAPPIL KRISHNAN, AGED 80 YEARS, KAIPAMANGALAM VILLAGE, DESOM, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. IRINJALAKUDA KURIES AND FINANCE (P)LTD., REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ABDURAHIMAN, S/O. KARAPPANVEETTIL MUHAMMED, MANAVALASSERY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 2. T.S.NARAYANANKUTTY S/O THARAYIL SANKARAN KAIPAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. 3. RAVEENDRAN S/O. THARAYIL KRISHNAN, KAIPAMANGALAM VILLAGE, DESOM, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.10974 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2009 JUDGMENT The first respondent obtained a decree in O.S.No.441 of 1996 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Irinjalakuda, against respondent Nos.2 and 3 for realisation of money. The Writ Petitioner entered into an agreement for sale with the second respondent in respect of 25 cents of land. The Writ Petitioner had given an advance amount of Rs.60,000/- to the second respondent. The Writ Petitioner filed O.S.No.256 of 1997 before the Munsiff’s Court, Kodungallur, for specific performance of the agreement for sale. There was an alternative prayer for return of the advance amount. A decree was passed in O.S.No.256 of 1997 for return of the advance amount. In execution of that decree, the property belonging to the second respondent having an extent of 25 cents of land was sold in court auction and it was purchased by the Writ Petitioner. Sale certificate was issued to him and he took delivery of the property. WPC No.10974 /2009 2 2. For realisation of the decree debt in O.S.No.441 of 1996, the first respondent filed E.P.No.118 of 2001 for sale of an extent of 86 cents of land. The Writ Petitioner was impleaded in the execution proceedings. He filed objections. He contended that he is the auction purchaser in respect of 25 cents of land and therefore, that property cannot be sold in court auction. The contention raised by the petitioner was negatived by the executing court. Court auction sale was held. The first respondent/decree holder purchased the property in auction. The Writ Petitioner filed an application under Rule 90 of Order 21 CPC to set aside the sale. That application was dismissed. The first respondent filed an application for delivery. The Writ Petitioner filed Ext.P2 objection to that application. The court below by Ext.P3 order dated 7th October 2006 rejected the application which is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 3. The petitioner having been impleaded in the execution proceedings and the executing court having rejected all his contentions, he cannot challenge the order for delivery in the present proceedings. The court auction sale was held and the WPC No.10974 /2009 3 petitioner had even applied for setting aside the sale. That application was dismissed and that order has become final. The petitioner cannot thereafter object to the delivery. The court below was right in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner. The Writ Petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl