IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2009 / 1ST POUSHA 1931 CRP.No. 556 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03/08/2009 IN EA.152/09 & 1/2009 IN AP.214/2001 of ADDL.D.C. & ADDL.MACT,ALAPPUZHA. .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/JD2: ------------------------------------------- K.KUTTAN,S/O. KARUMBAN, AGED 70 VALIYAKALATHINAL KULATHARAYIL, KATTANAM P.O., MAVELIKKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.DR. V.N. SANKARJEE RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LIMITED MANIPAL, REP.BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER T.P. PREMAN,S/O.KRISHNAN, 'GURU VILASAM' NETOOR P.O.,THALASSERY. 2. LEELA K.W/O. KUTTAN, 'KARTHIKA' VALLIKKUNNAM P.O.,MAVELIKKARA. 3. RAJENDRAN, S/O. GOVINDAN, KADUVINAL P.O. VALLIKKUNNAM P.O. MAVELIKKARA. 4. REJI UMMAN, S/O.UMMAN, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, MANALIL VEEDU,CHANGAPUZHA NAGAR, THRIKKAKARA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT ADV. SRI.V.J.JAMES FOR R4 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NO.556 OF 2009 (A) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2009 O R D E R Revision is directed against the order in E.A.No.152 of 2002 in E.A.No.1 of 2009 in E.P.No.50 of 2003 in A.P.No.214 of 2001 on the file of the Additional District Court, Alappuzha. Petitioner is the 2nd judgment debtor in the above execution proceedings, which relate to the execution of an award passed in an arbitration proceedings numbered as A.P.No.214 of 2001. In execution of that award, a property belonging to the judgment debtor was brought to sale and purchased in auction by the 4th respondent. After confirmation of the sale, a petition was moved by the 2nd judgment debtor under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure contending that the application by the auction purchaser for delivery of the property was barred by limitation. The court below, after hearing both sides, found that the sale was confirmed only on 25.9.2008 and the petition for delivery was filed within the CRP.556/09 2 time. In that view of the matter, the court found that the plea canvassed that it was barred by limitation is unsustainable. Perusing the impugned order with reference to the submissions made by the counsel on both sides, the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent, I find that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the court below. Revision lacks merit, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp