IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 8TH AUGUST 2011 / 17TH SRAVANA 1933 OP(C).No. 1454 of 2011(O) -------------------------------- OS.169/1998 of SUB COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER: ---------------- INDRANI NAGAR RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION, RERGISTERED NO. 789/94, INDRANI NAGAR, CHUNNAMBUTHARA, PALAKKAD -12, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT D. RAMACHANDRAN. BY ADVS. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH SRI.SUMODH MADHAVAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. KAMALAVATHY, W/O. NARAYANANKUTTY, KAZHCHAMPARAMBA, KANNADI AMSOM DESOM, KANNADI.P.O - 678 701, PALAKKAD TALUK. 2. T.V. KRISHNAMOORTHY, S/O. VAROOPAKSHA, KANNIKESWARI STREET, PATTIKKARA - 678 012, PALAKKAD. 3. SIVASANKARAN, S/O. KRISHNANKUTTY MOOTHAN, MOTHANTHARA.P.O - 678 012, PALAKKAD. 4. PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PALAKKAD - 678 014. R1 BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN R4 BY SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE ADVS. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.JIBU P THOMAS SRI.P.S.APPU THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs O.P.(C). NO. 1454/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.494/2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN IN E.A.NO.764/2000 IN E.P. NO.203/2003 IN O.S. NO.169/1998 BEFORE THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, PALAKKAD. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P(C).No.1454 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 08th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Respondents 2 and 3 are served but, there is no response. 2. Petitioner has preferred a claim petition (E.A.No.494 of 2010) in E.P.No.203 of 2003 in O.S.No.169 of 1998 of the Court of learned Sub Judge, Palakkad. First respondent/decree holder has obtained a decree for recovery of money against the second respondent. It is said that the common recreation area in the development permit of the residential colony was attached for realisation of the amount due to the first respondent. Petitioner which is the residents association made the claim petition (E.A.No.494 of 2010) under Order XXI, Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That application has not so far been disposed of. Apprehension of petitioner is that the executing court may proceed with further proceeding in the matter before disposal of the claim petition. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and respondent 1 and 4. 3. Since claim petition is not disposed of, the same has to be disposed of before other proceeding are taken in the matter. O.P(C).No.1454 of 2011 -: 2 :- Resultantly this original petition is disposed of directing learned Sub Judge, Palakkad to dispose of the claim petition filed by the petitioner (E.A.No.494 of 2010) as early as possible before proceeding with sale of the property. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-