Mohammed Rafi vs Ansar
2021 Latest Caselaw 4925 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                            PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

   WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 21ST MAGHA,1942

                      OP(C).No.386 OF 2021

  E.P.NO.71/2019 IN OS 619/2015 OF     MUNSIFF'S COURT,NEDUMANGAD

                         ------------


PETITIONER/JUDGMENT DEBTOR DEFENDANT:

             MOHAMMED RAFI
             AGED 67 YEARS
             S/O. LATE MOHAMMED KHAN, AL-HUDHA, A. P. 15/534
             (1), NEAR KH L.P.S., AZHEEKODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

             BY ADVS.
             SHRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM
             SMT.MERCIAMMA MATHEW
             ASWIN P JOHN
             SRI.R.ANANTHAPADMANABAN
             SHRI.THAYYIB SHA P.S.

RESPONDENT/DECREE HOLDER/PLAINTIFF:

             ANSAR
             S/O. ABDUL HAMEED, KARIMKUTTY PUTHEN VEEDU,
             VALIKODE, THEKKUMKARA MURI, NEDUMANGAD,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 541.


         THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
    10.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
    FOLLOWING:
                      Sathish Ninan, J.
            ==============================
                 O.P(C) No.386 of 2021
              ==========================
       Dated this the 10th day of February, 2021

                           JUDGMENT

The original petition is filed seeking the following

reliefs:

(i) Issue an order setting aside Exhibit P6

order to facilitate the adjudication of the

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in O.S No.619 of

2015 on merits by the Sub Court, Nedumangad.

(ii) Direct the Munsiff's Court, Nedumangad to

keep in abeyance the proceedings in Exhibit P8

Execution Petition till the Sub-Court

Nedumangad takes a decision in the Civil

Miscellaneous Appeal on merits.

Ext. P6 order is appealable in nature. Challenging

the said order, the petitioner has preferred C.M.A No.8

of 2020 before the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram. A

parallel challenge against that order in this Original

Petition is not liable to be entertained. OP(C).No.386 OF 2021

As regards stay of execution proceedings, the remedy

of the petitioner is to seek for stay in the C.M Appeal

filed against Ext P6 order. There is no reason why this

Court should intervene and pass orders. Original

Petition is not liable to be entertained and is

accordingly dismissed.

Sd/- Sathish Ninan, Judge vdv OP(C).No.386 OF 2021

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 8.11.2018 IN O.S.NO.619 OF 2015.

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE AGREEMENT.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SAID RENTAL AGREEMENT DATED 7.7.2014.

EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SUIT NUMBERED AS O.S.619 OF 2015

EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED ON 27.02.2017.

EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.07.2020.

EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL.

EXHIBIT P7(a) THE TRUE COPY OF THE IA NO.2 OF 2020 SEEKING STAY OF ALL THE PROCEEDINGS IN O.S.NO.619 OF 2015.

EXHIBIT P7(b) THE ORDER OFF ENDORSEMENT RETURNING THE CASE FOR SUBMITTING THE SAME BEFORE THE SUB COURT, NEDUMANGAD.

EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE EP 71/19 IN OS 619/15.

---------------