IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2009 / 31ST BHADRA 1931 CRP.No. 513 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04/06/2009 IN E.A.NO.188/09, 189/09 AND EA.190/09 IN E.P.131/95 IN OS.271/1993 of M.C.,WADAKKANCHERRY .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------------------------- KUTTIMALU, AGED 72 YEARS, D/O.LATE KORAN, KODANY HOUSE, N.COLONY, CHOONDAL VILLAGE, 680 508, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.A.X.VARGHESE, MR.A.V.JOJO, MR.P.A.WAZEEM. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT:DECREE HOLDER: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- BRAHMAKULAM ST.THOMAS CHURCH WELFARE SOCIETY, THAIKKAD AMSOM, BRAHMAKULAM DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, REP. BY SECRETARY. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON I.A.NO.2771/2009 IN C.R.P.NO.513/2009 DISMISSED 22/09/2009 SD/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NO.513 OF 2009 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T The revision is filed by a stranger to the proceedings against the orders passed by the execution court in three applications filed by her, all of which were dismissed by the execution court. A decree by sale of the mortgaged property was passed in O.S.No.271 of 1993 by the Munsiff Court, Wadakanchery in favour of the respondent/plaintiff as against the mother and brother of the present petitioner, who were the defendants in the suit. The decree was put in execution and sale of the mortgage property was also conducted to realise the decree debt. After such sale, the petitioner, a stranger to the proceedings had moved an application under Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the sale. That application was dismissed. Challenging the dismissal of that application, the petitioner had preferred CRP.513/09 2 a revision before this Court, and that revision was dismissed on the ground of 'no instructions' vide Annexure A3 order. Subsequent to the dismissal of that revision, one of the judgment debtors, the mother of the petitioner had passed away. After the demise of her mother, the petitioner again approached the execution court and moved three applications, one for setting aside the sale under Order XXI Rule 90 of CPC, the other for her impleadment in the executing proceedings and the third one for keeping in abeyance the delivery of the property, which was sold to the decree holder in the auction conducted by the court. Those three applications, after consideration, were dismissed by the execution court. Propriety and correctness of the orders passed on such applications is challenged in this revision. 2. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made and also taking note of the facts and circumstance presented, I find no notice to the respondent is CRP.513/09 3 necessary, and, hence, it is dispensed with. After the death of the mother, one of the judgment debtors, the petitioner has obtained some interest over the property sold, and so much so, she is to be impleaded and heard before ordering delivery of the property sold in favour of the decree holder/auction purchaser, is the submission of the learned counsel. Further submission of the counsel is to the effect that the orders passed by the court violates the provisions covered by Order XXI Rule 22-A of the CPC. I find no merit in the submission. Confirmation of the sale and delivery of the property follow once a property is sold by the court. Petitioner had already challenged the sale conducted by moving an application under Order XXI Rule 90 of CPC. Whatever be his right or interest claimed over the property, that application was dismissed. After the sale, the mother had some subsisting right over the property, and on her death, the petitioner got a right by way of inheritance over that property, the case developed by the petitioner to move a fresh application under Order XXI Rule 90 of CPC needs to be taken note of only for its rejection. CRP.513/09 4 There is no merit in the revision, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp