IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2008 / 11TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 26509 of 2008(E) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN EA 430/92 IN EP 117/91 IN OS.446/1989 of MUNSIFF COURT,CHAVAKKAD .................... PETITIONERS: ---------------- 1. BALASUBRAMANIAN, PALLATHUVALAPPIL, PADINHAKKARA VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK. 2. INDIRA, W/O. BALASUBRAMANIAN, PALLATHUVALAPPIL, PADINHAKARA VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN SMT.M.M.DEEPA SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) SRI.JAYKAR.K.S. RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. KOCHANNAM, W/O. CHERUVATHUR BENNY, D/O. CHEERAN KAKKAPPAN, COUNTERPALAYAM, 2/42, SANTHI NAGAR, COIMBATORE. 2. SAKKARIA, S/O. PULIKKOTTIL THAVUNNI, MANGAD VILLAGE AND DESOM, THALAPPILLY TALUK. 3. KOCHUKUNJAN, S/O. THOLATH UTTOOP, KANIYAMBAL DESOM, KUNNAMKULAM VILLAGE, PROPRIETOR OF THOLATH AGENCIES, MONEY LENDING BUSINESS. 4. SUSHEELA, D/O. PALLATHUVALAPPIL BALASUBRAMANIAN, PORKKALAM DESOM, PAZHANJI VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.26509 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd September, 2008. J U D G M E N T This petition is filed by the decree holders under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to quash Exts.P3, P4 and P5 orders passed by Munsiff, Chavakkad, in E.A.Nos. 772, 773 and 774 of 2006 in E.A.No.430 of 1992, in execution of the decree in E.P.No.117 of 1991 in O.S.No.446 of 1989. The property of judgment debtors were sold in the E.P. and purchased by the auction purchaser, father of first respondent. After confirming the sale, a sale certificate was issued. E.A.No.430 of 1992 was filed for delivery of the said property. It was dismissed for default. Later, based on the Will executed by the deceased auction purchaser, first respondent filed E.A.No.772 of 2006, an application to restore E.A.No.430 of 1992. E.A.No.773 of 2006 was filed to amend the cause title of E.A.No.430 of 1992 and E.A.No.774 of 2006 was filed to implead first respondent as the petitioner in the place of deceased W.P.(C) No. 2 auction purchaser. Petitioners filed Ext.P2 objection to the applications. Learned Munsiff allowed the applications under Exts.P3 to P5 orders. 2. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that learned Munsiff did not consider his objection while allowing the applications, and inspite of the contentions that the claim is barred by time, even that objection was not considered. 3. In view of the order to be passed in this writ petition, I do not find it necessary to issue notice to respondents. 4. Though Exts.P3 to P6 orders do not show when E.A.No.430 of 1992, application filed by the auction purchaser to take delivery of the property was dismissed for default, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the said petition was dismissed on 29.2.2000. It is also pointed out that E.A.No.772 of 2006, application for restoration of E.A.No.430 of 1992, as well as other applications to amend the cause title and W.P.(C) No. 3 also to implead first respondent were filed only on 28.2.2006. Ext.P3 objection shows that petitioners have taken a contention therein that applications are barred by time. In such circumstances, before allowing the application, learned Munsiff should have considered the objection, especially with regard to the limitation. In such circumstances, Exts.P3 to P5 orders are quashed. Learned Munsiff is directed to re-consider E.A.Nos.772, 773 and 774 of 2006 and pass orders, in accordance with law, after hearing the parties. The writ petition is disposed as above. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj.