BHASKARAN Vs. VIJAYARAGHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ petitioner, in the petition filed under Art.227 of the Constitution of India, challenges Ext. P2 order passed by the Sub Court, Palakkad. The undisputed facts in this case are as follows:

(2.) The first respondent obtained a decree for a sum of Rs.49,182/- with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of the suit till realisation with costs of the suit. The decree further provided that the first respondent could realise the decree amount with costs and interest personally from the defendant and also by sale of the mortgaged properties. The defendant in the suit executed a settlement deed in respect of a decree schedule property in favour of the third respondent, his son. This was done in the year 1997, that is assignee of a portion of the property from the third respondent. The assignment was made in favour of the petitioner only in the year 1999. The suit was filed as early as in the year 1991. It is further not disputed that a sum of Rs. 1,03,000/- was reserved in the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner to enable the petitioner to wipe off the decree amount. Thus it cannot be disputed that the petitioner purchased the property fully aware of the liability under the decree in O. S. 267 of 1991. It is also clear that the petitioner purchased the property fully aware that the suit was filed and was decreed. The contention of the petitioner is that he would be able to effect the payment through court and avert the sale if he is impleaded as a party in the execution petition. Petitioner filed E.A. 450 of 2003 under S.146 read with O.22 R.10 of the Code of Civil Procedure to get himself impleaded as a supplemental respondent in the execution petition. He justifies this move on his part by stating that without impleading him as a party, he would not be in a position to pay off the amount and thus avert the sale. The petitioner also moved an application as E.A. 451 of 2003 under O.21 R.69 read with S.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to adjourn the execution of sale till orders are passed in the application pending. The Sub Court, Palakkad dismissed the application pending. The Sub Court, Palakkad dismissed the application for impleading, which is impugned before this court.

(3.) I heard Sri. V. Chitambaresh, counsel for the petitioner and Sri. G. Sreekumar, appearing on behalf of the first respondent.