Hydrali Kalathinkal (Ali K.H.) vs Narayanan Namboodiri

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 5278 Ker
Judgement Date : 17 May, 2022

Kerala High Court
Hydrali Kalathinkal (Ali K.H.) vs Narayanan Namboodiri on 17 May, 2022
OP(C) No.837/2022
                                    -1-



                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
       TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 27TH VAISAKHA, 1944
                           OP(C) NO. 837 OF 2022
      AGAINST THE EP NO.96/2021 IN OS 270/2020 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT,
                     OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT
PETITIONER/S:

            HYDRALI KALATHINKAL (ALI K.H.)
            AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. MUHEMMED ALI,
            AKALUR AMSOM DESOM,
            LAKKIDI PERUR I VILLAGE,
            OTTAPALAM TALUK,
            PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 691101
            BY ADV BABU JOSEPH PYNADATH


RESPONDENT/S:

            NARAYANAN NAMBOODIRI
            AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. RAMAN NAMBOOTHIRI
            PUZHANGAPARAMBU MANA,
            ANTHIKAD P.O., PADIYAM VILLAGE,
            MANGATTUKARA DESOM,
            THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680641
      THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.05.2022, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 OP(C) No.837/2022
                                   -2-




                            JUDGMENT

Petitioner is the first judgment debtor in E.P No.96/2021 arising out of O.S No.270/2020 pending before the Munsiff's Court, Ottapalam. The petitioner herein filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:

"(i) Issue a direction to the Munsiff's Court, Ottapalam to stay all the proceedings in Exhibit P4;
(ii) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on admission.

3. The plaintiff in O.S No.270/2020 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Ottapalam had filed suit for mandatory injunction directing the petitioner herein who is the first defendant therein to vacate the plaint schedule premises. As on 30.01.2021, decree was passed and thereby, the petitioner was directed to surrender vacant possession of plaint schedule rooms to the plaintiff within a period of one month from OP(C) No.837/2022 -3- 30.01.2021 and on failure, the plaintiff was given liberty to execute the decree through the process of court. Thereafter, the petitioner herein failed to surrender the vacant possession of the building, and accordingly, the plaintiff filed E.P No. 96/2021.

4. It is discernible from Ext.P6, the proceedings before the execution court that, as on 26.11.2021, the petitioner appeared before the execution court. It is relevant to note that though the decree was passed as early on 30.01.2021, the petitioner herein not filed any appeal challenging the decree or any petition to set aside the ex parte decree till this date even after appearing before the execution court on 26.11.2021, as borne out from records and as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. That shows that the petitioner has no grievance in relation to the decree put in execution.

5. It is worthwhile to note further that as per the delivery order dated 22.03.2022, the Munsiff directed delivery of plaint schedule rooms by 30.03.2022, and when the Amin visited the rooms, it was noticed that the rooms stand locked. What happened thereafter is a matter not borne out from the records. OP(C) No.837/2022 -4- According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, delivery not effected so far.

6. To be on the crux of this matter, it is crystal clear that a legally passed decree on 30.01.2021 has been put in execution by the decree holder and when delivery was ordered to be effected on 30.03.2022 the petitioner has filed this original petition on 09.05.2022. As I already pointed out, no challenge raised in so far as the decree put in execution. In view of the matter, the petitioner failed to raise any legally sustainable contentions and therefore, none of the reliefs sought for herein above, can be granted. Therefore, the original petition is found to be meritless and accordingly, the same is dismissed.

7. It is specifically ordered that the execution court can go with the delivery of the rooms as per law.

Registry is directed to forward a copy of this petition to the Munsiff's Court, Ottapalam for information.

Sd/-

A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE JS OP(C) No.837/2022 -5- APPENDIX EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE O.S NO.270/2020 OF MUNSIFF 'S COURT, OTTAPPALAM DTD 22.09.2020 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE DTD 30.01.2021 IN OS NO.270/2020 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, OTTAPPALAM EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD 30.01.2021 IN OS NO.270/2020 MUNSIFF'S COURT OTTAPPALAM EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF EP NO.96/2021 IN OS NO.270/2020 DTD 22.07.2021 IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT -P4 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION IN EP NO.96/2021 IN OS NO.270/2020 DTD 27.11.2021.