JYOTHI REGHUNATHAN Vs. C.V. SREENIVASAN,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER claims to be the Director of a private limited company of which the second respondent is stated to be Managing Director. First respondent obtained a money decree against the said company, in O.S. No. 238 of 2006 of the Sub Court, Palakkad and launched execution. The said company was set ex parte in the execution proceeding on 22.11.2010. An item of property belonging to the said company was sold in court auction on 13.06.2012. It is submitted that the company had filed E.A. No. 543 of 2011 to set aside ex parte order but that application is not so for disposed of by the executing court. It is also the version of petitioner that though subsequent to the sale and its confirmation, entire decree amount was paid to the first respondent/decree holder on 13.06.2011. Claiming interest in the property sold petitioner in his capacity as Director of the company filed E.A. No. 414 of 2012 purportedly under Sec. 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "the Code") requesting to set aside the sale and seeking other reliefs. There, he claimed that there was no proper notice served on the company in the execution proceeding, service was attempted to be made through a local daily which had only nominal circulation in the area where the company is situated and that there was no effective service of notice of execution petition and notice under Rule 66 of Order XXI of the Code on the company. The application was resisted by the 3rd respondent/auction purchaser.

(2.) EXECUTING court found that no objection was raised at the appropriate stage after notice under Rule 66 of order XXI of the Code was served on the company, claim made by the petitioner comes under Rule 90 of Order XXI of the Code and that it is barred by limitation. E.A. No. 414 of 2012 was dismissed. Petitioner is aggrieved.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the second respondent submitted that the second respondent is impleaded in his personal capacity and not as representing the company.