Santhi vs K.T.Rameshkumar
2021 Latest Caselaw 10614 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                           PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR

   MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 8TH CHAITHRA, 1943

                    OP(C).No.432 OF 2021

   AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 164/2017 OF PRINCIPAL
                 MUNSIFF COURT KOZHIKODE-I


PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS 2 & 3:

      1     SANTHI,
            AGED 51 YEARS,
            D/O. KAMALAKARAN,
            27/645A, RANGEELA,
            KOTTOOLI AMSOM, DESOM, KOZHIKODE.

      2     JAGANATHAN,
            AGED 46 YEARS,
            S/O. KAMALAKARAN,
            27/645A, RANGEELA,
            KOTTOOLI AMSOM, DESOM, KOZHIKODE.

            BY ADV. SMT.T.V.NEEMA

RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:

            K.T.RAMESHKUMAR,
            AGED 61 YEARS
            S/O. K.T. DAMODARAN,
            PADMINI VIHAR,
            NELLIKKODE AMSOM DESOM,
            KUTHIRAVATTOM P.O,
            KOZHIKODE - 673016,
            REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
            K.T. SATHEESH KUMAR.

            BY ADV. SRI.K.PRAVEEN KUMAR

     THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
  O.P.(C) No.432 of 2021
                                       2



                                 JUDGMENT

Dated this the 29th day of March 2021

Petitioners who are the defendents in O.S.No.164/2017 on

the files of the Munsiff's Court, Kozhikode, seek a direction to defer

the execution proceedings in E.P. No.114/2020 in O.S.No.164/2017 of

Munsiff Court, Kozhikode.

2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the

respondent who is the plaintiff.

3. The suit for mandatory injunction was decreed against the

petitioners on 13-02-2020. Consequently, the respondent filed

E.P.No.114/2020 for execution of the decree.

The contention of the 1st petitioner is that the 2nd petitioner being

mentally ill and the sole male member of the family, some indulgence

may be shown to the petitioners deferring the delivery proceedings.

The petitioners have no legal claim at all to make before this Court

even in this proceedings. It is further submitted by the learned counsel

for the petitioners that an appeal is proposed to be filed challenging the

legality of ex-parte decree and two months time may be required for

the purpose. Since there is no legal claim made by the petitioners, I do O.P.(C) No.432 of 2021

not find any reason to call upon the court below to defer the execution

proceedings.

In the result, O.P. fails and is dismissed. The court below,

however, shall postpone the execution proceedings till court re-opens

after mid-summer vacation so that the petitioners may be enabled to

file a regular appeal challenging their ex-parte decree against them.

Once the court reopens, the court below will proceed with the matter

subject to the directions issued in the appeal filed, if any.

Sd/-

T.V. ANILKUMAR JUDGE SMF/29/03 O.P.(C) No.432 of 2021

APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE EP. 114/2020 IN OS.

164/2017 OF MUNSIFF COURT, KOZHIKODE WITH SUMMONS.

SMF/29/03                      //TRUE COPY//         P.A. TO JUDGE