IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 RP.No. 812 of 2011(O) AGAINST NON-COMPLAINCE OF THE JUDGEMENT IN OPC.775/2011 REVIEW PETITIONER: ---------------------- NAJEETHA.M.K., W/O.LATE ABDUL KHADER, AGED 48, RESIDING AT MUDAVANKATTIL HOUSE, VADAKKUMKARA VILLAGE, VELLANGALLOOR DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SMT.GEETHA P.MENON SRI.N.AJITH SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. M.SHAHEED, S/O.A.R.MOIDEEN SHAH, BISMI FANCY STORE, OPPOSITE PODUVAL BROTHERS, POST OFFICE ROAD, THRISSUR - 680 503. 2. M.M.HANEEFA, S/O. -DO- -DO- 3. M.SHAJAHAN, S/O. -DO- -DO- 4. M.RAJIH, S/O.M.SHAHEED, -DO- 5. THAZNI, D/O. -DO- -DO- 6. NAHAH, D/O. -DO- -DO- 7. MUHAMMED SERIFF, S/O.MOIDU, 'GREESHMAM', ENAMAVU ROAD, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 506. 8. FATHIMA, W/O.KINARAMAKKAL MOIDEN, KINARAMAKKAL HOUSE, PANANGATTUKARA P.O., THEKKUMKARA VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, (VIA) WADAKKANCHERRY, THRISSUR - 680 582. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ Review Petition No. 812 of 2011 in O.P.(C). NO. 775 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 30th day of November, 2011 O R D E R The review petitioner is not a party in the Original Petition. The Original Petition was filed by respondents 1 to 6 in the Review Petition against respondents 7 and 8. The Original Petition was disposed of directing the executing court to sell the decree schedule properties in the manner less prejudicial to the judgment debtors. Certain directions were also issued as to how the different lots should be identified and sold. 2. The Review Petitioner claims that she is a mortgagee in respect of one of the items. The review petitioner filed a claim petition under Rule 58 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure before the executing court. That application is not yet disposed of. The apprehension of the petitioner is that in view of the direction issued in O.P.(C) No.775 of 2011, the claim petition filed by the R.P.NO.812 OF 2011 IN O.P.(C) NO.775 OF 2010 :: 2 :: review petitioner would not be considered and disposed of before the sale takes place. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondents as well. 4. When an application is filed under Rule 58 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, that has to be disposed of on the merits before sale of the property in question is held. In spite of the directions in the judgment dated 16.6.2011, the court below shall consider the claim petition in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. Accordingly, the Review Petition is allowed. It is made clear that the directions in the judgment dated 16.6.2011 shall not stand in the way of the executing court considering and disposing of the claim petition filed by the review petitioner in accordance with law. The claim petition shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible so that, to the extent possible, the directions contained in the judgment sought to be reviewed also could be implemented without delay. It is also made clear that consideration of the claim petition filed by the R.P.NO.812 OF 2011 IN O.P.(C) NO.775 OF 2010 :: 3 :: review petitioner need not be a ground for adjourning the sale of other items, provided there is no other impediment in selling those items. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/