Sathyapal K vs Joseph K.P.
2021 Latest Caselaw 7650 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                          PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR

 THURSDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 13TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                    OP(C).No.529 OF 2021

AGAINST THE ORDER DTD 29.1.2021 IN EA 13/2021 IN EP 21/2019
          IN OS 2/2017 OF SUB COURT, PERUMBAVOOR


PETITIONER/PETITIONER/DEFENDANT:

            SATHYAPAL K.
            AGED 49 YEARS
            S/O SARASWATHY AMMA, KOLAKKATU HOUSE,
            KODANAD KARA, KODANAD VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU
            TALUK, ERNAKULAM-683544.

            BY ADV. SRI.R.DIVAKARAN

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:

            JOSEPH K.P., AGED 60 YEARS
            S/O POULOSE,
            KOTTANADAN HOUSE,
            RAYAMANGALAM KARA,
            RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK,
            ERNAKULAM-683545.

            BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR)

     THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 O.P.(C)No.529 of 2021

                                    :-2-:

             Dated this the 4th day of March, 2021


                            J U D G M E N T

Ext.P5 order passed by the Sub Court,

Perumbavoor, is challenged by the aggrieved

judgment debtor in E.P.No.21/2019 in O.S.No.2/2017.

2. The petitioner/judgment debtor has filed

E.A.No.13/2021 before the execution court

contending that he has got rights in respect of the

suit property and he is not liable to be evicted

from the property. Learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that notwithstanding the

respondent/decree holder not having filed any

objection, the court below dismissed E.A.No.13/2021

for no good reasons.

3. I heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the

respondent.

O.P.(C)No.529 of 2021

:-3-:

4. Learned counsel for the respondent points

out that though he did not in so many words file an

objection, oral contentions were urged pressing for

dismissal of the petition. The impugned order shows

that the court below discussed the factual and

legal reasons in support of dismissal of

E.A.No.13/2021.

5. Having suffered the decree passed by the

court below, the petitioner raised very same

contentions as to title to the property in question

before the same court sitting on execution side. In

that scenario, the court below observed that a

court called upon to execute decree, cannot go

behind the decree and execute as it stands. Having

gone through the impugned order, I do not find that

it is vitiated by any illegality or irregularity. I

am of the opinion that the impugned order does not

call for any interference in this proceedings. O.P.(C)No.529 of 2021

:-4-:

In the result, the original petition fails and

it is dismissed.

All pending interlocutory applications are

closed.

Sd/-

T.V.ANILKUMAR JUDGE ami/

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

O.P.(C)No.529 of 2021

:-5-:

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.2/2017, SUB COURT, PERUMBAVOOR.

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT.

EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OS NO.2/2017 DATED 31.01.2019.

EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBSTRUCTION PETITION IN E.A.NO. 13/2021.

EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN E.A.NO.

13/2021 IN EP.NO. 21/2019 IN OS NO. 2/2017 DATED 29/01/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, PERUMBAVOOR.