Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 9093
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Devan Ramachandran, J
BIOTECH SOVEREIGN GOLD LLP – Appellant
Versus
K.V VIJAYAN – Respondent
OP(C) 1827 2023
MEENA.A.VINOD RAVINDRANATH K.C.KIRAN M.R.MINI M.DEVESH ANISH ANTONY ANATHAZHATH THAREEQ ANVER K.NIVEDHITHA PREM.V
The Court underscored the importance of adjudicating execution petitions promptly to ensure justice is served without undue delay.
Headnote:
Timeliness - Execution Proceedings - Execution Petition - Court's directive for prompt resolution.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner requested the Court to expedite the execution of a decree that had been pending for over five years, asserting a denial of their rights to the decree's benefits, while respondents acknowledged the request but sought adequate time for pending matters.
Finding of the Court:
The court acknowledged the delay in the execution proceedings and directed the Sub Judge to resolve the execution petition expeditiously while considering all competent applications, mandating completion within eight months.
Issues: Whether the execution proceedings of an order issued in 2016 can be expedited after an extended delay.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for timely execution of decrees to uphold justice and stressed that the Sub Judge must act equitably and within a defined timeframe.
Final Decision: The execution petition must be resolved within eight months.
JUDGMENT
The limited plea of the petitioner is that the Principal Sub Court, Palakkad, be directed to dispose of EP No.114/2017 in OS No.69/2016, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.
2. Smt. Meena .A - learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that even though the decree was issued as early as in 2016, her client has been denied its fruits because the Execcution Proceedings have been pending for more than five years. She thus reiteratedly prayed that the learned Sub Court be directed to dispose of the same, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents, interestingly, submitted that he does not stand in the way of the afore request being granted, but pleaded that sufficient time period be fixed for the Sub Court to dispose of the Execution Petition because his client is already moved an application for appointment of an Expert Commission, to value one of the properties involved.
4. I notice from the file that this Court had called for a report from the learned Sub Judge which is now available.
5. The learned Sub Judge, Palakkad, has reported, affirming that E.A.No.238/2023 has been filed by the respondents seeking appointment of an Expert Commissioner for valuation of the E.P Schedule property, and that objections to it have also been filed by the petitioner. She has further reported that E.A.No.238/2023 was next posted to
31.10.2023.
In the afore circumstances, I allow this Original Petition and direct the learned Sub Judge, Palakkad, to complete proceedings in the Execution Petition, after affording necessary opportunity to both sides and after consideration of all competent and valid applications, as expeditiously as is possible but not later than eight months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
