LAWS(KER)-2017-12-168

SHARLAJ Vs. GEETHAKRISHNAN

Decided On December 19, 2017
Sharlaj Appellant
V/S
Geethakrishnan Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises from the order passed by the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Palakkad on 22.09.2010, dismissing I.A.No.2731 of 2009 in Insolvency Petition No.1 of 1997, an application filed by the appellant herein under Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure with a prayer that the sale held by the Official Receiver on 17.07.2009 may be set aside. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(2.) The appellant herein was adjudged to be an insolvent as per an order of adjudication passed by the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Palakkad on 12.04.2006 in Insolvency Petition No.1 of 1997. The Official Receiver, thereupon brought to sale two items of immovable properties, that originally belonged to the appellant and they were sold for Rs.11,07,500/- and Rs.7,32,000/- respectively and purchased by Appukutty and Radhakrishnan respectively. After depositing the balance sale consideration, they filed I.A.No.69 of 2010, for an order directing the Official Receiver to execute assignment deeds in their favour. Shortly thereafter, the appellant filed three applications in the court below. They are I.A.Nos.2730 of 2009, 2731 of 2009 and 2732 of 2009. I.A.No.2732 of 2009 was filed under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the ex-parte order of adjudication. I.A.No.2730 of 2009 was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay of 1230 days in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte order of adjudication. He also filed I.A.No.2731 of 2009 styled as an application under Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure with a prayer that the sale held by the Official Receiver on 17.07.2009 may be set aside. He contended that the properties are worth Rs.One Crore and therefore, the sale held on 17.07.2009 for a total sale consideration of Rs.11,07,500/- and Rs.7,32,000/- respectively, is liable to be set aside.

(3.) The contesting respondents namely, the petitioners in Insolvency Petition No.1 of 1997 resisted all the three applications. The Insolvency Court considered the rival contentions and dismissed all the three applications by the impugned order. As stated earlier, the appellant has filed this appeal challenging only the order passed by the Insolvency Court dismissing the application filed by him as I.A.2731 of 2009, under Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the sale held by the Official Receiver on 17.07.2009.