BINCY SCARIA Vs. JOSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed by the decree holder in E.P.9/2015 in O.P.No.664 of 2002 on the file of the Family Court, Thodupuzha. In the above OP, the Family Court granted a decree for realization of value of gold and patrimony from the judgment debtor. Before this Court the parties settled the dispute in Mat.Appeal No.211/2007 and a compromise decree was passed. In execution of the above compromise decree, an extent of 83 cents of property belonging to the judgment debtor was put to sale and the petitioner herein purchased the same on 6/11/2017 for a sum of Rs.15,66,350.00. The respondent/judgment debtor filed E.A.No.45/2017 under XXI Rule 90 of CPC praying for setting aside the sale. As per Ext.P2 order, the Execution Court dismissed the E.A on 15/5/2018 and on the same day the sale was confirmed. Thereafter, on 3/6/2018, the respondent filed E.A.No.15/2018 praying for restoring E.A.45/2017. The petitioner herein filed Ext.P4 counter to E.A.No.15/2018. On 22/5/2019 the Execution Court dismissed E.A.15/2018, as per Ext.P5 order. Thereafter, on 11/10/2019 the petitioner filed E.A.31/2019 under Order XXI Rule 95 CPC for delivery of the property purchased by him. Ext.P6 is the copy of E.A.31/2019.

(2.) The respondent filed Ext.P7 counter to Ext.P6 opposing Ext.P6 mainly on the ground that it is filed after the expiry of the period of limitation as provided under Article 134 of the Limitation Act. The Execution Court, after accepting the contention raised by the respondent, dismissed E.A.31/2019 as per Ext.P8 order holding that it is barred by limitation. Aggrieved by the above order, the decree holder preferred this petition raising various grounds. Now the points that arise for consideration are the following :-

(3.) Heard both the parties.