Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 19380
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, P. G. Ajithkumar, JJ
D. CHANDRALEKHA
– Appellant
Versus
K.R. PRASAD – Respondent
OP (FC) 660 2022
T.P.DEYANANTHAN, S.KRISHNALAL, FIROZ K.M., M.SHAJNA
Family Courts must comply with timelines in execution proceedings, ensuring prompt resolutions to uphold justice.
Headnote:
Execution - Family Law - Article 227 - Summary: The court directed the Family Court to expedite execution proceedings as mandated by the Supreme Court to ensure timely justice, emphasizing the need to decide applications related to decree execution swiftly.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to expedite execution of a decree from a Family Court, claiming it was delayed due to pending applications from the respondent regarding the decree's validity.
Issues: The main issue was whether the execution petition could be expedited despite pending requests to set aside the decree.
Ratio Decidendi: The obligation of the Family Court to dispose of execution matters within six months was reinforced, with the decision regarding ex parte status influencing procedural timelines.
Final Decision: Petition granted; Family Court ordered to resolve pending applications within one month.
JUDGMENT
P.G. Ajithkumar, J.
The petitioner in this Original Petition filed under Article
227 of the Constitution of India is the decree holder in O.P. (HMA) No.1360 of 2013 on the files of the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. He seeks a direction to the Family Court to expedite the proceedings in E.P.No.55 of 2019, which was filed by the petitioner to execute the decree in O.P.(HMA)
No.1360 of 2013.
2. Pursuant to notice the respondent entered appearance through his learned counsel.
3. As per the order dated 29.11.2022, a report from the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram about the present status of E.P.No.55 of 2019 and I.A.No.36 of 2022 in O.P.
(HMA) No.1360 of 2013 was called for.
4. In the report, the learned Judge, Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram would submit that in the execution petition steps for proclamation for sale of the property of the judgment debtor, who is the respondent herein, was initiated.
It is further submitted that I.A.No.36 of 2022 filed by the judgment debtor to set aside the exparte decree is pending. I.A.No.1 of 2022 was also filed for condoning the delay of 1504 days in filing I.A.No.36 of 2022. Those applications are pending consideration.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in the light of the direction of the Apex Court in Rahul S.Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi [AIR 2021 SC 2161 : 2021 (3) KLT 235 (SC)], the Family Court has an obligation to have disposed E.P.No.55 of 2019 in O.P.
(HMA) 1360 of 2013 expeditiously.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, would submit that the decree sought to be executed is an exparte one and when I.A.No.36 of 2022, which was filed for setting aside the said decree, is pending consideration, the Family Court cannot be directed to dispose of the execution petition in a time bound manner.
8. The direction of the Apex Court Rahul S.Shah (supra)
is that every court in India dealing with execution proceedings must dispose of the execution proceedings within six months from the date of filing, which may be extended only by recording reasons in writing for such delay. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the decree in O.P.(HMA) No.1360 of 2013 dated 20.02.2018, Ext.P2, is not an ex parte one, and therefore pendency of I.A.No.36 of 2022 is not a justification for the delay in disposing the execution petition. 9. Whether or not the decree in O.P.(HMA) No.1360 of
2013 is an exparte one is a question to be decided by the Family Court. Therefore, the contentions of both sides in that regard are left open. It is submitted that the petitioner has already filed objections to the said interlocutory applications. In such circumstances, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this Original Petition by directing the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, to dispose of I.A.No.36 of 2022 and I.A.No.1 of 2022 within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment.
10. The Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram is further directed that, based on the outcome of the said decision, E.P.No.55 of 2019 in O.P.(HMA) No.1360 of 2013 shall be disposed of in obiedence to the directions contained inRahul S.Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi [ AIR 2021 SC 2161:
2021 (3) KLT 235 (SC)].
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE
APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 660/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.P.(HMA)
NO.1360/2013 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 31/08/2013 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
20/02/2018 IN O.P. NO.1360/2013 IN THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE IN O.P.
NO.1360/2013 DATED 20-02-2018 IN THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE E.P.NO.100055/2019 ON
03-07-2019 IN O.P.NO.1360/2013 IN THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF DATES OF POST
