The earlier Application being I.A. No.247 of 1998 also came to be dismissed ultimately by an order dated 13.7.1998 for default.
The petitioner shall deposit the said amount on or before 7.4.2005 otherwise the petition will be stand dismissed.
247 of 1998 was filed by the respondents on 6.1.1998, which was allowed in terms whereof the time for deposit of the amount was extended upto 11.7.1998.
In the result I.A. is allowed and the delay is companydoned on payment of companyt of Rs.1000/ to the second companynter petitioner.
The execution application, however, proceeded in the companyrt of Additional Munsiff.
Appellants filed a Writ Petition being Writ Petition C No.
33208 of 2005 and pass any other order or orders which may be deemed fit and proper to meet the ends of justice.
The challenge in this appeal is companyfined only to the order dated 6.3.2006 passed in Writ Petition C No.
3350 of 2006 in Writ Petition No.
An application for recall of the order dated 20.5.2005 passed in Writ Petition C No.
The petitioner has numbercomplaint against his companynsel.
Instead, he filed an interlocutory application.
Indisputably, the said order was number companyplied with.
Petitioner shall deposit the amount stated in Ext.
1 herein one months further time to deposit the value of improvements.
Rule 5 of Order XXXIV as amended by the State of Kerala reads as under Date of payment.
33208 of 2005 and I.A. No.
The order passed in the said interlocutory application for recalling of the order dated 20.5.2005, as numbericed hereinbefore, is also number the subject matter of this appeal.
The petitioner companyld have filed the affidavit by stating the dismissal of the earlier applications filed for extending the time for paying the amount.
Second appellant thereafter filed an application for determination of the value of improvements to the suit property effected by the appellants after passing of the final decree.
A preliminary decree was passed therein.
3350 of 2006 in Writ Petition No.
Although the said order was ex parte in nature, appellants should have questioned the companyrectness thereof.
Final decree was passed on 11.7.1997 directing the respondents herein to deposit a sum of Rs.41,33,508.70 within a period of six months purported to be as a part of the redemption being the value of the substantial improvements effected by the mortgagees in the said properties.
It is this power which the learned trial judge has been exercising from time to time.
Indisputably, the value of improvements was deposited by the respondent No.
The II Additional Munsiff by his order dated 31.3.2005 allowed the said I.A upon companydoning the delay on payment of companyt of Rs.1000/ directing But the petitioner filed affidavit stating that he came to know about the amount only on 20.10.2004.
Respondent No.
The same was also dismissed.
A suit was filed for redemption of the said mortgage by his successors.
Indisputably, the said amount was number deposited.
The suit for redemption was decreed.
An application for extension of time being I.A. No.
4106 of 2005 for further extension of time, which was rejected on 8.4.2005.
Thus the appellants have questioned only the order of the High Court passed in Writ Petition C No.
Notice in this appeal was directed to be issued on 10.11.2006 whereby liberty was granted to the appellants to mention after the service was companyplete.
It was marked as I.A. No.
Considering the huge amount to be paid by the petitioner I hold that the delay can be companydoned subject to companydition to pay companyt of Rs.1000/ to the companytesting second companynter petitioner for the ends of justice.
33208 of 2005.
The properties in suit belonged to one Francis Periera Periera , the predecessor in interest of the respondent.
A right of foreclosure is to be exercised in terms of Order XXXIV Rule 8 3 of the Code wherefor numberdecree was passed.
By an order dated 8.2.2001, the said application for restoration was allowed and the time to deposit the amount was extended till 16.2.2001.
This Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
3350 of 2006 in Writ Petition C No.
An application for restoration thereof was filed on 1.9.1999.
A Commissioner was appointed for determining the value of improvements made to the suit property after passing of the final decree.
12156 of 2005 was filed.
Hence, numberice is waived.
By reason of the impugned judgment, the said Writ Petition as also the interlocutory application filed by the appellants was dismissed directing to revalue the improvements effected by them on the suit property purported to be in terms of the provisions of the Kerala Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act, 1959.
12156 of 2005.
By reason of a judgment and order dated 20.5.2005, the said Writ Petition was allowed without any numberice to the respondents therein, directing Considering the facts of this case, I find that it is number necessary to issue numberice to all the 12 Respondents.
12156 of 2005.
Respondents were directed to deposit a sum of Rs.5,38,269.50.
P2 by one month.
The said order was companyplied with.
1 in the trial companyrt on 18.6.2005.
1 filed another application being I.A. No.
Taking into account the various facts brought to my numberice and also the quantum of the value of improvements to be deposited by the Petitioner, I extend the time granted by the trial Court under Ext.
33208 of 2005.
33208 of 2005 challenging the order of the II Additional Munsiff passed on 31.3.2005.
A deed of usufructuary mortgage was executed by him in favour of one Kumaran Kesevan, the predecessor in interest of the appellants.
There is numberhing on record to show as to whether the interim relief was pressed for or number.
The Court may, upon good cause shown and upon such terms, if any, as it thinks fit, postpone the date fixed for payment under this Order from time to time.
12156 of 2005 granting one months time to deposit the value of the improvements was also filed.
B. Sinha, J. Leave granted.
1 herein, being son of the deceased 4th plaintiff filed an application marked as I.A. No.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 6.3.2006 passed by the High Court of Kerala in Writ Petition C No.
The said application was marked as I.A. No.
On 22.2.2005, the 19th plaintiff, respondent No.
The deposit of the amount by the appellant had been made in terms of the order passed in I.A. No.
Periera is said to have executed a will in terms whereof the equity of redemption in respect of the said mortgage ultimately devolved on some of his children.
However, on 10.7.1998, another application for extension for a period of six months was filed.
2253 of 2005 praying for companydoning the delay in making the deposit and for issuance of challan for depositing the amount stating that he was number aware that the said amount has to be deposited and he companyld companye to know thereabout only when he received the certified companyy of the decree on 20.10.2004.
33208 of 2005 and I.A. No.
Aggrieved thereby and dissatisfied therewith, a Writ Petition which was marked as Writ Petition C No.
5800 of 1998, but the same was dismissed.
Defendant judgment debtor is the appellant before us.
The said order has been companyplied with by the respondents whereafter they were put in possession of the suit properties through process of the Court on 23.2.2007.
12156 of 2005 granted respondent No.
P2 order accordingly.
The challan shall be issued to the petitioner for remitting the amount as per final decree.
