Sabu T. John vs Kuriachen
2021 Latest Caselaw 21379 Ker

OP(C) No.1925/2021                         1/4

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                        PRESENT
                           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
                Friday, the 29th day of October 2021 / 7th Karthika, 1943

                                 OP(C) NO. 1925 OF 2021


EP No. 22 of 2014 in OS 119/1993 OF MUNSIFF COURT,MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM

   PETITIONER/ ADDITIONAL 2ND JUDGMENT DEBTOR/ L.H OF DEFENDANT:

          SABU T. JOHN AGED 58 YEARS SON OF ULAHANNAN, THADATHIL HOUSE,
          KUNNACKAL KARA, VALAKOM VILLAGE, PIN - 682 316, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

   RESPONDENTS/ DECREE HOLDEER/ PLAINTIFF:

          KURIACHEN AGED 60 YEARS SON OF OUSEPH, KOOTTAPPAL HOUSE, KUNNACKAL
          KARA, VALAKOM VILLAGE, PIN - 682 316, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.


        OP (Civil) praying inter alia that in the circumstances stated in
   the affidavit filed along with the OP(C) the High Court be pleased to stay
   all further proceedings in EP No. 22 of 2014 in O.S No. 119 of 1993 on the
   files of Court of Munsiff, Muvattupuzha, till the disposal of the original
   petition.


        This petition coming on for admission upon perusing the petition and
   the affidavit filed in support of OP(C) and upon hearing the arguments of
   M/S C.N.SREEKUMAR, SABU P.JOSEPH, MANJU PAUL & ANIL PRASAD, Advocates for
   the petitioner, the court passed the following:


                                                                            [PTO]
 OP(C) No.1925/2021                               2/4




                                        V.G.ARUN, J.
                                ============================
                                   O.P.(C) No.1925 of 2021
                                 ---------------------------
                     Dated this the 29th day of October, 2021

                                               ORDER

Admit. Issue notice to the respondent through

speed post.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued

that the petitioner is not responsible for having

removed the slab and moreover, the decree

restrains the judgment debtors from obstructing

the movement of the decree holder through B

schedule.

Having heard the learned Counsel and having

perused the relevant documents, I find that by

removal of the slabs, the movement of the

respondent through B schedule will definitely be

obstructed. Therefore, leaving apart the question

whether the petitioner had removed the slabs or

not, the slabs have to be reinstated at the OP(C) No.1925/2021 3/4

O.P.(C) No.1925 of 2021

earliest.

In the circumstances, the direction in Ext.P4

order to realise the costs of the

rebuilding/reinstatement of the slabs over the

canal from the petitioner is stayed for one

month. It is made clear that this order does not

interdict the reinstatement/rebuilding of the

slabs in any manner.

Sd/-

                                                              V.G.ARUN
                                                               JUDGE
          Scl/29.10.2021




29-10-2021                           /True Copy/                                   Assistant Registrar
 OP(C) No.1925/2021                 4/4

APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1925/2021 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29/06/2021 OF THE COURT OF MUNSIFF, MUVATTUPUZHA IN E.P.NO.22 OF 2014 IN O.S.NO.119 OF 1993.