BALASUBRAMANIAM Vs. KOCHANNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EXTS.P4 & P5 orders are under challenge. The obstructors are the petitioner Balasubramanian, his wife Indira and his daughter Suseela. The execution court considered the claim put forth by the obstructors in detail. The execution court held that the obstructors have no right over the property in dispute and that their claim is not bonafide or genuine. The obstructors preferred appeal before the District Court. The District Court confirmed the decision of the execution court. The matter was agitated before this Court in second appeal. That also ended in dismissal. Subsequently, the obstructors participated in several proceedings before the execution court and challenged several orders passed by the execution court before the lower appellate court and this Court in appeals and O.Ps. Apart from dismissal of the second appeal this Court in O.P(C).No.783/2010 again considered the contentions of Indira, wife of the petitioner Balasubramanian. Referring to various orders passed by the execution court and lower appellate court this Court held that all the courts consistently held that the obstructors including Indira, who claimed title subsequent to the attachment of the property, are persons bound by the attachment for sale and liable to be removed from possession. This Court also observed that the said persons improperly continued to contest all applications submitted by the auction purchaser as well. This Court examined the legality of Ext.P2 order dated 4.8.2010 passed in E.A.No.290/2009 in O.P(C).No.783/2010. This Court repelled the contentions raised by the obstructors and observed that the execution court rightly permitted the daughter of the auction purchaser to prosecute E.A.No.430/1992, which is an application for delivery of possession of the property. This Court by judgment dated 3.2.2011 dismissed the O.P. The said judgment is marked as Ext.P3.

(2.) NOW the execution court passed Exts.P4 & P5 orders in E.A.Nos.772, 773 & 774 of 2006 in E.A.No.430/1992 in E.P.No.117/1991 in O.S.No.446/1989. The execution court after referring to the earlier orders passed by the said court, lower appellate court and this Court held that the right claimed by the obstructors has already been adjudicated and finally decided and therefore they have no right to oppose the continuation of the proceedings by the legal representatives of the auction purchaser. The court allowed the applications. I have referred to the rights claimed and agitated by the obstructors. The O.P filed challenging Exts.P4 & P5 orders is devoid of any merit. No valid grounds are made out for interference by this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The O.P therefore fails and accordingly, dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioner requested this Court to grant time for vacating the premises. The request is unjustified in the circumstances of the case. Therefore rejected.