Kerala

StateCommission

A/08/18

Joseph Rebello - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mary Morris - Opp.Party(s)

A.K.Chinnan

04 Nov 2008

ORDER

First Appeal No. A/08/18
(Arisen out of Order Dated 06/11/2007 in Case No. 261/2005 of District Kollam)
1. Joseph Rebello Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies Cum Managing Director,KSCHF Ltd,4330, Kaloor, Kochi.
PRESENT :A.K.Chinnan , Advocate for the Appellant 1

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

JUDGMENT

 
   APPEAL NO:18/2008
Dated 4.11.2008
 
This appeal is preferred from the order dated:6..11..2007 passed by CDRF, Kollam.  But unfortunately in the order the year is mistakenly type written as 6..11..2008. The aforesaid order was passed in EP:58/07 in OP:261/05. By the impugned order the Forum below (Execution Court) issue warrant to the Judgment Debtors 1 to 3 who were the opposite parties 1 to 3 in OP:261/05. The present appellant is the 3rd opposite party Sri.Joseph Rebello, Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kerala State Co-operative Housing Federation Ltd., 4330, Kaloor, Kochi and S. Santhosh Kumar, Inspector of Co-operative Societies Cum Part Time Administrator, Chavara Block, Rural Housing Co-operative Soceity No:326, Chavara. It is to be noted that the present appellants were not parties in OP:261/05. The Execution Petition:58/07 was filed by the Decree Holder against the opposite parties 1 to 3. The 3rd opposite party therein preferred an appeal:388/07 challenging the correctness of the order passed by the Forum below in OP:261/05. This Commission has dismissed the said appeal on the admission stage itself and thereby confirmed the impugned order passed by the Forum below. Thus it can very safely be concluded that the Decree Holders have every right to file the execution petition to get the order in OP:261/05 executed.
2. The present appeal is filed against the warrant ordered against the Judgment Debtors 1 to 3. The reason stated is that they were not given the opportunity of being heard, though they had file objection to the execution petition. But a reading of the impugned order passed in EP:58/07 would make it clear that the Judgment Debtors were absent and they failed comply with the order passed by the Forum below. Thus, the Forum below had no other go but to get the order executed by issuing a warrant against the Judgment Debtors. The facts and circumstances of the case in OP:261/05 would show that the Judgments Debtors have been causing much trouble and inconvenience to the Decree Holders. It can also be seen that there was no kind of fault or lapse on the part of the Decree Holders. The only mistake committed by the Decree Holders is that they availed loan from the opposite parties and discharged the said debt. But the Decree Holders did not get the title deeds realized from the opposite parties. They also did not get a release deed executed in their favour. Thus in all respects the impugned order passed in EP.58/07 is to be upheld. Hence we do so.
In the result the present appeal is dismissed at the admission stage itself.                                                                                                   VL.
PRONOUNCED :
Dated : 04 November 2008