Kerala High Court
Bhasi vs K.Omana on 22 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR
MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 3RD PHALGUNA, 1942
OP(C).No.485 OF 2021
IN I.A.NO.3/2021(I.A.147/2021) IN O.S.NO.467/2019 OF MUNSIFF
COURT, ALATHUR
PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:
BHASI,
AGED 50 YEARS,
S/O. BALAKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT PUTHUR VEEDU,
PERINJANAM POST, PERINJANAM VILLAGE,
KODUNGALOOR TALUK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT
PIN 680 686
BY ADVS.SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE
SRI.BIJO THOMAS GEORGE
SMT.NICEY A. MENON
SRI.P.A.REJIMON
RESPONDENTS/ DEFENDANTS:
1 K.OMANA,
AGED 65 YEARS,
W/O. PRABHAKARAN, RESIDING AT VETTUKADU HOUSE,
CHITHALI POST, KUZHALMANNAM VILLAGE, ALATHUR
TALUK, PIN 678 702
2 P. BANANDH,
AGED 39 YEARS,
S/O. PRABHAKARAN, RESIDING AT VETTUKADU HOUSE,
CHITHALI POST, KUZHALMANNAM VILLAGE, ALATHUR
TALUK, PIN 678 702
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
O.P.(C)No.485/2021
-:2:-
Dated this the 22nd day of February,2021
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is the plaintiff in
O.S.No.467/2019 on the file of Munsiff Court,
Alathur.
2. I heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner at the stage of admission.
3. It is submitted that a temporary order of
injunction was issued after hearing both parties,
in favour of the petitioner by the court of first
instance which was later challenged by the
aggrieved defendants in C.M.A.No.54/2020. By
Ext.P3 judgment, the appellate court vacated the
order of temporary injunction which restrained the
respondents herein from dispossessing the
petitioner from the property. It is stated that in
O.P.(C)No.907/2020, the order of the appellate
court was stayed.
4. I.A.No.3/2021 was later filed by the
petitioner before the Munsiff Court, Alathur,
seeking to implement the order of injunction
through police. That interlocutory application was
dismissed and the request was declined.
5. The ground for dismissal of I.A.No.3/2021
O.P.(C)No.485/2021
is that the order passed by the court of first
instance has merged in the appellate order.
6. It is true that a civil court has power
to implement order of injunction passed by it
through police in appropriate cases. When the
impugned order itself is under challenge and is
sub judice, it doesn't appear to be fair to permit
implementation of such orders through police. The
challenge raised by the respondents as to legality
of the order in C.M.A.No.54/2020 is under
consideration in O.P.(C)No.907/2020. The
proceedings are still pending and this Court is
yet to decide on the legality of the appellate
court's order. The proceedings have not attained
finality and in that scenario, it is not fair at
all to permit the order of the Munsiff Court,
Alathur to be implemented through police.
7. In my view, the learned Munsiff has not
committed any illegality in passing Ext.P6 order.
The court below has taken a balanced view in the
matter and refused to order implementation of the
order through police.
In the result, original petition fails and it
is dismissed at the stage of admission. The
O.P.(C)No.485/2021
petitioner may agitate his grievance in O.P.
(C)No.907/2020 if law would permit.
All pending interlocutory applications will
stand closed.
Sd/-
T.V.ANILKUMAR,JUDGE
DST //True copy/
P.A.To Judge
O.P.(C)No.485/2021
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LEASE AGREEMENT
EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND
RESPONDENTS.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED
18-03-2020 IN I.A. 2273/2019 IS O.S.
467/2019 OF THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF'S
COURT, ALATHUR
EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER DATED 24-
03-2020 IN CMA 54/2020 OF THE DISTRICT
COURT, PALAKKAD
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER DATED 05-06-
2020 IN O.P (CIVIL) 907/2020 OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P5 TYPED COPY OF I.A 3/2021 (I.A 147/2021)
IN O.S 467/2019 OF HON'BLE MUNSIFF'S
COURT, ALATHUR
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER DATED 03-02-
2021 IN I.A 3/2021 (I.A 147/2021 ) IN
O.S 467/2019 OF HON'BLE MUNSIFF'S
COURT, ALATHUR.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL
