SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 13005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
T.R.RAVI, J
S.V. ABDUL HAMEED – Appellant
Versus
STATE BANK OF INDIA – Respondent
OP(C) NO. 2292 OF 2025 | EP 65/2012 | OS NO.147 OF 2010



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.E.N.VISHNU NAMBOODIRI, SHRI.P.SANKARAN NAMPOOTHIRI, SRI.M.K.SASEENDRAN, SHRI.NARAYANAN P POTTY
For the Respondents: SHRI.P.GOPAL, SRI.T.V.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI

Extensions for filing applications under relevant procedures can be granted for achieving fairness in judicial proceedings.

Headnote:{'statute_analysis': 'Order 21 Rule 90 of the Civil Procedure Code and Section 5 of the Limitation Act empower the court to stay proceedings under certain conditions.', 'facts_of_case': 'The petitioner filed an original petition seeking to stay further proceedings in an execution petition pending in the Sub Court, Payyannur, with the aim of filing an application regarding the sale confirmation.', 'findings_of_court': 'The court noted that the request for extension was justified under the circumstances, and allowed a further period for filing the application.', 'issues': 'The main issue considered was whether the court should grant additional time for the petitioner to file necessary applications.', 'ratio_decidendi': 'The court reasoned that allowing the petitioner some leeway to file applications serves the interests of justice and fair procedure.', 'result': 'This original petition is disposed of directing the Sub Court, Payyannur to keep further proceedings in abeyance for a further period of two weeks.'}

Table of Content
1. request for a stay on execution proceedings. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court's directive for extension to facilitate application filing. (Para 3)

JUDGMENT

The only prayer in this original petition is to stay further proceedings in EP.No.65 of 2012 in OS.No.147 of 2010 pending before the Sub Court, Payyannur for a period of two months to facilitate the petitioner to file an application under Order 21 Rule 90 of Civil Procedure and an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act .

2. The original petition was filed on 19.09.2025 and the period of two months sought for has already elapsed. This Court had stayed the confirmation of the sale pursuant to Ext.P5 for a period of one month on 23.09.2025 and the said order is being extended.

3. In the above circumstances, this original petition is disposed of directing the Sub Court, Payyannur to keep further proceedings in abeyance for a further period of two weeks. If the petitioner files any application as stated in prayer No.1 within the aforesaid period of two weeks, the same shall be considered and orders passed.

Sd/-

T.R.RAVI JUDGE

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top