Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, J
MANICKANAMPARAMBIL CHITTY FUND – Appellant
Versus
K.UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR – Respondent
CRP 155 2015
CPC - Execution Proceedings - Order 21 Rule 90 - The court interpreted Order 21 Rule 90 of the CPC, emphasizing that only persons with affected interests can contest a sale, leading to the dismissal of applications deemed non-maintainable.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought execution of money decrees from the Sub Court. The husband's applications to set aside the auction sale were dismissed by the executing court, leading to appeals which were resolved against the first respondent due to a lack of standing.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the first respondent lacked any interest in the property sold, making his application under Order 21 Rule 90 non-maintainable. The judgment in the CMAs was overturned and applications dismissed.
Issues: Whether the applications under Order 21 Rule 90 filed by a person without any interest in the property are maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi: A person must have an affected interest in a property for their application under Order 21 Rule 90 to be considered, and without such standing, the application cannot succeed.
Final Decision: The C.R.Ps are allowed, and the applications filed by the first respondent are dismissed.
C O M M O N O R D E R
Petitioner is the decree holder in EP.298 of 2009 and EP.48 of 2010 of Sub Court, Kottayam. The decrees sought to be executed were passed by Sub Court, Ernakulam in O.S.195 of 1997 and O.S.No.200 of 2007 respectively. The decrees were for realisation of money. The property of the second respondent was sold in auction. The first respondent, husband of the second respondent, filed applications under Order 21 Rule 90 C.P.C. The learned Sub Judge observed that there is no valid ground to set aside the sale and dismissed them. These were challenged in CMA.2 of 2013 and CMA.17 of 2013. Though the learned District Judge took notice of the contention that since the first respondent has no right in the property his applications under Order 21 Rule 90 C.P.C were not maintainable he allowed the CMAs for the simple reason that the impugned orders of the executing court are not a speaking orders. He also observed that the petitioner/JD can raise the contention of non maintainability in the executing court. These are challenged in this C.R.Ps
2. Heard.
3. Under Order 21 Rule 90 C.P.C only a person whose interests are affected by the sale can maintain an application. Admittedly, the first respondent has no right in the property. The applications filed by him were not at all maintainable. The EPs were filed in 2009 and 2010. The applications under Order 21 Rule 90 were filed in 2012. At this distance of time it is not proper to direct the petitioner to agitate the matter in the executing court. The judgment in the CMAs are liable to be set aside.
In the result, these C.R.Ps are allowed. EA.Nos.197 of 2012 and 748 of 2012 filed by the first respondent stand dismissed on a ground other than the one mentioned in the orders of the executing court. It is made clear that if the execution applications allegedly filed by the second respondent under Order 21 Rule 90 C.P.C are pending, they shall be disposed of in accordance with the law notwithstanding the dismissal of these C.R.Ps.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
