OP(C) No.1113 of 2022

1 OP(C) No.1113 of 2022 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 14[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 23RD BHADRA, 1944 ``` ## **`OP(C) NO. 1113 OF 2022`** ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 13.6.2022 IN EP 164/2022 IN FDIA 2021/2012 OF THE SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE ``` ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` SUBAIR C AGED 62 YEARS S/O. MUKKALI AHAMMEDKUNHI, KHADEEJA MANZIL, PANNIYANKARA, KOZHIKODE. , PIN - 673003 BY ADVS. P.A.NOOR MUHAMED S.GIFFARA ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` CHINNAPPA ABDUL NAZAR S/O. MUKKALI AHAMMEDKUNHI,AGED 54 YEARS KHADEEJA MANZIL, PANNIYANKARA, KOZHIKODE., ``` ``` BY ADV G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) ``` ``` THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 1.09.2022, THE COURT ON 14.9.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 2 OP(C) No.1113 of 2022 ## **C.S DIAS,J.** **--------------------------OP(C) No.1113 of 2022** **-----------------------------** ## **Dated this the 14[th ] day of September, 2022.** ## **JUDGMENT** Aggrieved by the Ext.P17 order dated 13.6.2022 passed in E.P No.164/2022 in FDIA No.2021/2012 in OS No.436/2007 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kozhikode, the judgment debtor has filed the original petition. The decree holder is the respondent. 2. The relevant facts necessary for the determination of the original petition are: (a) The petitioner was the defendant in the above suit filed by the respondent ― his brother ― for a decree of partition of 41 cents of land and a residential building described in detail in the plaint. The petitioner was initially arrayed as the defendant. Subsequently, he was transposed as the second plaintiff. The suit was decreed as per Ext.P1 on 27.7.2009, partitioning the property by metes and bounds into two equal shares. The equities and 3 OP(C) No.1113 of 2022 reservations were left to be decided in the final decree proceedings. (b) The second respondent filed FDIA No.2021/2012 to pass the final decree. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed, who filed the report fixing the value of the property at Rs.2,73,93,632/- and stating that the property could only be conveniently allotted to one sharer due to the building. The petitioner and the respondent filed Exts.P2 and P3 objections to the commission report. By Ext.P4 order, the court below ordered the property to be sold in an auction between the sharers and fixed the upset price at Rs.2,74,00,000/. (c) Aggrieved by Ext.P4 order, the petitioner filed RFA No.639/2015 before this Court. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner and the respondent arrived at an excuria settlement by way of a written agreement dated 17.8.2015, wherein the respondent agreed to pay the petitioner an amount of Rs.2,30,00,000/-. The petitioner’s counsel filed Ext.P7 memo in the appeal, and this Court, 4 OP(C) No.1113 of 2022 by Ext.P8 judgment dated 2.11.2015, dismissed the appeal as not pressed. (d) Immediately after the appeal was dismissed, the respondent dishonestly filed I.A No.714/2016 to reopen FDIA No.2021/2012. The court below had become functus officio and had lost its jurisdiction to proceed with the matter. The reopening of FDIA No.2021/2012 and the auction conducted in favour of the respondent, by Ext.P9 order, for an amount lesser than the agreed price, is illegal and untenable. The petitioner has lost rupees one crore because of the auction. (e) Challenging Ext.P9 order, the petitioner filed O.P(C)Nos.763 and 2822 of 2017 before this Court. Initially, this Court had stayed the execution proceedings. Unfortunately, this Court, by Ext.P10 common judgment, dismissed both the original petitions. The petitioner has filed review petitions Nos.459 and 462 of 2022, to review Ext.P10 common judgment. (f) The petitioner has also filed I.A No.1/2022 in RFA 639/2015, to clarify that the appeal was disposed of under 5 OP(C) No.1113 of 2022 Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, ‘Code’) and not dismissed as not-pressed. (g) In the meantime, the respondent filed Ext.P12 execution petition before the court below to execute the non-est decree. The petitioner has filed Ext.P13 written objection and Ext.P14 additional counter statement pointing out that the order passed by the court below is without jurisdiction and is, therefore, a nullity. As the review petitions are pending consideration, the execution proceedings may be deferred. The petitioner has filed Ext.P16 application to set aside the sale. However, the court below, without considering the objections, proceeded with the execution and has passed impugned Ext.P17 order, ordering the Ameen to deliver possession of the property to the respondent. Ext.P17 is a non-speaking and wrong order. The court below has failed to consider that the decree is not executable, and the review petitions and the clarification petition are pending consideration. Hence, the original petition. 6 OP(C) No.1113 of 2022 ## 3. When the original petition came up for admission on 1.7.2022, this Court passed the following order: “Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Admitted. Issue notice to the respondent. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though appeal challenging the decree sought to be executed was dismissed, a petition was filed by the petitioner to modify the same and the same is on consideration of this Court. 3. It is submitted further that earlier, the petitioner filed O.P.(C)No.763 of 2017 and O.P. (C)No.2822 of 2017 and against which also, review petitions have been pending for consideration before this Court. Therefore, it is argued that, if the delivery ordered by the Court as per Ext.P17 is effected, it would cause prejudice to the petitioner and the same is liable to be stayed to save in the interest of the petitioner. **Since petition to modify the decree in RFA has been pending and review petitions also pending for hearing, delivery if effected, the same would adversely affect the interest of the petitioner as submitted by the learned counsel. Accordingly, the delivery in E.P.No.164 of 2022 in FDIA No.2021 of 2012 in O.S.No.436 of 2007 on the file of the 1 st Additional Sub Judge, Kozhikode shall stand stayed for a period of two months.** Post after the disposal of the review petitions and the petition in the Regular First Appeal or after two months, if the above petitions are not disposed of within two months”. 7 OP(C) No.1113 of 2022 4. Subsequently, when the original petition came up for consideration on 19.8.2022, Sri.P.A.Noor Muhamed, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, urged this Court to extend the interim order dated 01.07.2022. 5. Sri.G.Sreekumar (Chelur), the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, vehemently opposed the above prayer and argued that the interim order had worked itself out by dismissal of the review petitions and the clarification petition. Therefore, the original petition itself is to be dismissed. 6. In the light of the insistence of Sri.P.A.Noor Muhamed, the original petition was posted on 1.9.2022, the penultimate day before the Onam vacation. 7. On 01.09.2022, Sri.P.A.Noor Muhamed, who appeared through video-conferencing, commenced his arguments by 2.00 p.m. He insisted that the interim order be extended, even though he conceded that the review petitions and clarification petition were dismissed. His sheet anchor was that the order passed by the court below in re-opening the final decree proceedings was non-est 8 ## OP(C) No.1113 of 2022 and passed without jurisdiction; the court below was coram non-judice and had become functus officio. Hence the interim order may be extended. This Court then directed the learned Counsel to argue the original petition. The learned Counsel argued that the impugned order was passed without considering the petitioner’s objections. The court below lacked the jurisdiction to reopen the final decree application and conduct the auction. The decree was hit by fraud, deception and promissory estoppel. The appeal was disposed of based on an agreement executed between the parties; therefore, the respondent could not wriggle out of the agreement by putting the decree to execution. Ext.P17 order is perverse and unsustainable in law. The learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court in **Deputy Director v.** **Malla Atchinaidu** [(2006) 12 SCC 87], **State of Rajasthan v. Pakash Chand** [(1998) 1 SCC 1], **Jagmittar Sain v. Director** [(2013) 10 SCC 136], **Harshad Chiman v. DLF** [(2005) 7 SCC 791], **Union of India v. Association of Unified** [(2011) 10 SCC 543], 9 OP(C) No.1113 of 2022 **Amrit Bhikaji v. Kashinath** [(1983) 3 SCC 437], **Ashok Leyland v. of Tamil Nadu** [(2004) 3 SCC 1], **State of Haryana v. Kartar** [(2013) 11 SCC 375], **National Institute of Technology v.Niraj Kumar** [(2007) 2 SCC 481] and the judgment of this Court in **Hedge Finance v. Bijesh Joseph** (OP(C)No.1263/2022) to bolster his contention that the decree was non-est. As the learned counsel tenaciously kept beating around the bush and went past 3.00.p.m, unconcerned and disregardful of the fact that the physical court was jam-packed with lawyers and approximately 100 more cases to be called, where the interim orders had to be extended being the penultimate day before Onam vacation, this Court permitted the learned Counsel to place the citations in the chat box and file written submissions. The learned Counsel filed the written submissions on 02.09.2022. 8. Sri.G.Sreekumar assiduously countered the above submission and contended that the original petition was sheer abuse of process of law. The petitioner has been successfully procrastinating the execution proceedings of 10 OP(C) No.1113 of 2022 a 2007 suit. Notwithstanding the appeal being dismissed as not pressed on 02.11.2015 and the petitioner having received rupees ten lakh from the respondent as per the terms of the agreement, he has willfully refused to fulfill his part of the contract. Instead, he has been filing frivolous cases and applications, one after the other, and stalling the respondent from enjoying the fruits of the decree. The respondent was constrained to file the execution petition. The petitioner had managed to adjourn the auction proceedings on four occasions. Finally, the auction was conducted on 04.02.2017. The respondent has deposited the entire decree amount before the court below. All the contentions raised in the present original petition were raised, argued and decided in R.P.Nos.459 and 462/2022 by this Court. The findings in the common order passed in the above cases operate as res-judicata. The petitioner is estopped from raking up concluded matters. Even in the clarification petition filed in the appeal, the petitioner has raised the same contention, which was also dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court 11 ## OP(C) No.1113 of 2022 on 15.7.2022. The property has now been delivered as per the impugned Ext P17 order. The case stands posted for delivery report. As the review petitions and the clarification petition have been dismissed, nothing further survives in the original petition. The original petition may be dismissed with exemplary cost. 9. The core point is whether there is any error, illegality or perversity in Ext P17 order. 10. O.S No.436/2017 was decreed on 27.7.2009. The decree was put to execution. An Advocate Commissioner filed his report on 19.11.2014, valuing the property at Rs.2,73,93,632/-. Nonetheless, it was reported that the property could only be allotted to one sharer. Albeit the parties filing their objections to the report, the court below passed Ext.P4 final decree. 11. The operative portion of Ext.P4 final decree reads as follows: “The decree schedule property, building and improvements thereon will be sold in auction among the sharers on 1.8.2015 at 2.30 p.m. in the open Court. Parties or their counsels can participate in the auction. Upon 12 ## OP(C) No.1113 of 2022 completion of the auction, the party who offers highest price (highest Bidder) shall deposit, 10% of the amount of the bid amount then and there. Remaining amount has to be paid within 30 days. If the amount is not paid or deposited property will be allotted to the other for the amount offered by him. If he is not depositing appropriate orders will be passed. Issue carbon copy if applied. For auction 1.8.2015”. 12. Aggrieved by Ext.P4, the petitioner filed RFA No.639/2015 before this Court. During the course of the appeal, Ext.P7 memo was filed stating as follows: ## “NOT PRESS MEMO SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT The matter is settled out of court. Hence the above appeal need not be proceeded with. Therefore, in the interest of justice, it is most humbly submitted that the above appeal may be dismissed as not pressed. Dated this the 26[th] day of October, 2015”. 13. This Court recorded the memo and dismissed the appeal on 2.11.2015 by Ext.P8 judgment. Thereafter, alleging non-compliance of the conditions in the agreement entered between the parties, the respondent filed IA No.714/2016 before the court below to reopen the 13 ## OP(C) No.1113 of 2022 final decree application. The court below, by Ext P6 order, allowed the application on the following lines: **“In view of the fact that a final decree is not passed in accordance with the mandate contained in the preliminary decree and satisfaction of the decree is not so far recorded, the preliminary decree is still in force and is executable. As the final decree application was closed in accordance with the joint statement and both parties admit that terms of settlement are not complied in letter and spirit, it is just and proper to reopen the final decree. No prejudice will be caused to the respondent.** It is true that, along with this application, petitioner has produced an agreement entered into between the petitioner and the respondent. It is true that petitioner has a remedy to file a suit for specific performance of the said agreement. But that will not curtail the right of the petitioner to file an application to reopen the final decree which was closed as per a joint statement. In the result, petition allowed. Final decree petition reopened”. 14. Admittedly, the petitioner has not challenged the said order. Then, the court below, by Ext.P9 order, after noting that only the respondent was present and the petitioner was absent, confirmed the auction in favour of the respondent for an amount of Rs.2,73,93,635/-. 14 OP(C) No.1113 of 2022 15. The petitioner challenged Ext.P9 order by filing OP(C) Nos.763 and 2822 of 2017 before this Court. The respondent filed his counter affidavit. This Court, by Ext.P10 common judgment, dismissed the original petition holding thus: “7. Even though the learned Counsel for the petitioner pleaded for one more opportunity to the petitioner based on equity, I am not inclined to grant such opportunity, **since the facts reveal that other than raising objections, retracting from agreements and seeking adjournments, there was absolutely no positive act from the petitioner's part for giving effect to the partition decree.** Hence, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the result, the original petitions are dismissed”. 16. The matters did not end. The petitioner immediately filed Review Petitions Nos.459 and 462 of 2022 to review Ext.P10 common judgment. He also filed IA No.1/2022 in the dismissed appeal to clarify that the appeal was disposed of under Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code and not dismissed as not-pressed. 15 OP(C) No.1113 of 2022 17. During this interregnum, the court below proceeded with the execution petition and, by Ext P17 order, directed the property to be delivered to the respondent on or before 23.6.2022. 18. This Court admitted the original petition only on the ground that the review petitions and the clarification petition were pending and directed the court below to defer the execution until a decision is taken in the above matters. 19. A Division Bench of this Court dismissed the clarification petition on 15.7.2022 after finding as follows: “15. R.F.A.No.639 of 2015 was dismissed as not pressed. In Annexure A2 memo, there was no request to record the compromise. In the light of the said facts, **dismissal of appeal can be termed only as an abandonment of the appeal as per the provisions of Order XXIII, Rule 1 of the Code. Thereafter, the final decree application was proceeded with participation of the petitioner. After participating in the said proceedings and challenging the order therein before this Court in a different proceedings, the present attempt of the petitioner to get clarified Annexure A3 judgment so as to convert Annexure A3 into a disposal as per Order XXIII, Rule 3 of the Code, cannot be through a process of correction or clarification.** If Annexure A3 16 OP(C) No.1113 of 2022 judgment is to be converted to one of a settlement decree, it involves a total reversal of the process, which is not possible under the guise of correction or clarification; and not possible even by exercise of jurisdiction for review of the judgment. In the said circumstances, we are of the view that the claim of the petitioner that Annexure A3 judgment is liable to be clarified and corrected by incorporating the compromise as its part, is totally untenable. The petition is therefore dismissed. Unnumbered I.A.No.1 of 2022 and I.A.No.2 of 2022 Since I.A.No.1 of 2022 is dismissed, these petitions are closed”. 20. The review petitions were also dismissed on 11.8.2022. 21. In the light of the submission of the learned Counsel for the respondent that all the contentions that have been raised in the present original petition were raised in the review petitions and the defective unnumbered I.A.No.1/2022 filed in the dismissed appeal, I had called for the Judge’s papers in all the three cases. 22. I have carefully gone through the Judge’s papers in the three disposed-of cases. I find that the petitioner has raised verbatim the same contentions in the above matters as in the present case. The petitioner has even 17 ## OP(C) No.1113 of 2022 addressed himself, in paragraph 16, the relief portion and the interim relief portion in the present original petition, as ‘review petition’, which establishes that the petitioner has cut and pasted the pleadings from the review petitions. The decisions relied on in Grounds F, G and H in the review petitions are the same as in the present case. This Court, by its common order dated 11.08.2022, dismissed the review petitions. The findings of this Court in the common order passed in the review petitions and the order in the clarification petition undoubtedly operate as res-judicata. 23. Even otherwise, Ext.P17, challenged in the case at hand, is only a consequential order directing the Ameen to deliver possession of the property. The Ext.P17 was passed after the order of auction was confirmed by this Court by Ext.P10 common judgment. The contentions that the order reopening the sale is a nullity, the court below lacks inherent jurisdiction to reopen the final decree application, and the court below is coram non-judice etc., were all considered and rejected by this Court while dismissing the review petitions. The said contentions are 18 ## OP(C) No.1113 of 2022 barred by the principles of resjudicata and the one bite at the cherry doctrine. Thus, the re-agitation of the concluded questions is untenable and unsustainable in law. This Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the court below reopening the final decree application because the petitioner had wriggled out of the agreement. Viewed in the above background, there is no scope for any interference with Ext.P17 order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 22. The exercise of power by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is well settled in a plethora of precedents. The power conferred on this Court under the said Article is to keep the courts and tribunals within their bounds of authority and to see that they do their duty as expected of them in a legal manner. The power is restricted to the cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law and justice, where if this Court does not interfere, a grave injustice will remain uncorrected, but this is not to mean 19 ## OP(C) No.1113 of 2022 that the exercise of power under the above Article is akin to appellate or revisional powers. 24. Recently, in **Rahul S.Shah vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi** [(2021) 6 SCC 418], a three-Judge Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court has directed remedial measures to be taken by the Courts to reduce the delay in disposal of the execution petitions. It is held thus: “23. This court has repeatedly observed that remedies provided for preventing injustice are actually being misused to cause injustice, by preventing a timely implementation of orders and execution of decrees. This was discussed even in the year 1872 by the Privy Counsel in The General Manager of the Raja Durbhunga v. Maharaja Coomar Ramaput Sing (1871-72) 14 Moore’s I.A. 605 which observed that the actual difficulties of a litigant in India begin when he has obtained a decree. This Court made a similar observation in Shub Karan Bubna @ Shub Karan Prasad Bubna v Sita Saran Bubna (2009) 9 SCC 689, wherein it recommended that the Law Commission and the Parliament should bestow their attention to provisions that enable frustrating successful execution. The Court opined that the Law Commission or the Parliament must give effect to appropriate recommendations to ensure such amendments in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, governing the adjudication of a suit, so as to ensure that the process of adjudication of a suit be continuous from the stage of initiation to the stage of securing relief after execution proceedings. The 20 OP(C) No.1113 of 2022 execution proceedings which are supposed to be handmaid of justice and sub-serve the cause of justice are, in effect, becoming tools which are being easily misused to obstruct justice”. 25. On an analysis of the sequence of events narrated above, this Court is of the definite view that the petitioner’s attempt is nothing but a further attempt to stall the execution proceedings that too on a piecemeal basis. I say this because Ext.P17 order was produced with the review petitions as Annexure D. This Court refused to stay the order. The petitioner also moved a stay petition with the clarification petition filed in the appeal, which was also declined by the Division Bench. Immediately, the petitioner filed the instant case. 26. This Court strongly deprecates the conduct of the petitioner in filing a fresh original petition during the pendency of the above three matters for an identical relief. The action of the petitioner is nothing but forum hunting with the oblique intention to obstruct justice. In a way, the petitioner has successfully put spokes in the 21 ## OP(C) No.1113 of 2022 wheel of the final decree proceedings for a decade. The present original petition is yet another veiled effort to deny the respondent the fruits of the decree. This Court cannot succumb and be privy to such sharp practices. 27. Even more deplorable was the attitude and behaviour of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, who has intemperately made uncharitable barbs against the Court in the written submissions, that he was denied a full hearing. The allegation is far from the stark reality and truth. The learned Counsel consciously attempted to browbeat and pressurize the Court by repeating the same arguments, time and again, sending a clear message that he won’t stop his arguments until the self-operating interim order was extended. This Court condemns the conduct of the learned Counsel for adopting such naïve manoeuvrers. The upshot of the above discussions is that there are no grounds to interfere with Ext.P17 order in exercise of the powers of superintendence of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The original petition is an 22 OP(C) No.1113 of 2022 abuse of the process of law. The original petition is meritless and is dismissed. This Court refrains from imposing cost on the petitioner on the faintest perception that the petitioner was ill-advised to file the original petition . SD/- sks/14.9.2022 **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** 23 OP(C) No.1113 of 2022 ## **`APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1113/2022`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS ``` - `Exhibit P TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE DATED 27.7.2009 IN OS NO.436/2007 PASSED BY THE 3RD ADDL SUB` - `1 COURT, KOZHIKODE` - `Exhibit-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 16.12.2014 FILED BY THE PETITIONER` - `Exhibit-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 8.12.2014 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT` - `Exhibit-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.7.2015 IN FDIA 2021/2012 IN OS NO.436/2007 PASSED BY THE 3RD ADDL SUB JUDGE, KOZHIKODE` - `Exhibit-P5 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 17.8.2015` - `Exhibit-P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.4.2016 IN IA NO.714/2016 FDIA 2021/2012 PASSED BY THE III ADDL SUB JUDGE'S COURT, KOZHIKODE` - `Exhibit-P7 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 26.10.2015 FILED BY THE PETITIONER'S COUNSEL IN RFA 639/2015 BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT` - `Exhibit-P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 2.11.2015 IN RFA 639/2015 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT` - `Exhibit-P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3.2.2017 IN FDIA 2021/2012 IN OS 436/07 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE 3RD ADDL SUB JUDGE, KOZHIKODE` - `Exhibit-P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.8.2021 IN OP(C) NO. 763/2017 AND OP(C) NO. 2822/2017 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.` - `Exhibit-P11 TRUE COPY OF THE IA NO.1/2022 ALONG WITH THE AFFIDAVIT THERETO, BOTH DATED 1/6/2022, IN RFA NO.639/2015 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT.` - `Exhibit-P12 TRUE COPY OF THE E.P. NO. 164/2022 IN FDIA 2021/2012 IN OS NO.436/2007 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUB COURT AT KOZHIKODE.` 24 ## OP(C) No.1113 of 2022 ``` Exhibit-P13 ``` - `TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 26.5.2022 IN EP NO.164/2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUB COURT I AT KOZHIKODE.` - `Exhibit-P14 TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL COUNTER DATED 31.5.2022 IN EP NO.164/2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUB COURT I AT KOZHIKODE.` - `Exhibit-P15 TRUE COPY OF THE EA 629/22 IN EP 164/2022 IN OS 436/2007 DATED 31/5/2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUB COURT 1 AT KOZHIKODE.` - `Exhibit-P16 TRUE COPY OF EA 619/2022 IN EP 164/2022 ALONG WITH THE AFFIDAVIT THERETO, BOTH DATED 28.5.2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN BEFORE THE HON'BLE COURT 1, KOZHIKODE.` - `Exhibit-P17 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.6.2022 IN E.P. NO.164/2022 IN FDIA 2021/2012 IN OS 436/2007 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE COURT OF THE 1ST ADDL SUB JUDGE, KOZHIKODE.` ``` EXHIBIT P18 ``` - `TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.9.2021 IN FDIA 2021/2012 IN OS 436/2007 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL SUB JUDGE, KOZHIKODE` - `EXHIBIT P19` ``` TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.6.2022 IN EP 164/2022 IN FDIA 2021/2012 IN OS 436/2007 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE I SUB JUDGE’S COURT, KOZHIKODE AND AS DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE HON’BLE COURTS ```