Kerala High Court
M.Noorudheen vs Sheela George on 13 September, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 22ND BHADRA, 1945
CRP NO. 271 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02.03.2020 IN E.A.NO.62/2019 IN EP 35/2018
OF MUNSIFF COURT,CHENGANNUR
REVISION PETITIONER:
M.NOORUDHEEN, AGED 66 YEARS
S/O. MYTHEENKUNJU,NIZAM MANZIL,
THRIKKODITHANAM P O, POTTASSERI,
MAVELIMATTOM ROAD, CHANGANACHERRY,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
V.PHILIP MATHEW
SRI.GIBI.C.GEORGE
SRI.JOHNSON K.KURIEN
RESPONDENT:
SHEELA GEORGE, PUTHEN PARAMBIL VEETTIL,
KURATTISSERY MURI, KURATTISSERY VILLAGE,
CHENGANNUR TALUK, MANNAR P O, ALAPPUZHA
DISTRICT - 689622.
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.09.2023, ALONG WITH CRP NO.275/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP 271&275/2020
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 22ND BHADRA, 1945
CRP NO. 275 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02.03.2020 IN EP NO.35/2018 IN
O.S.NO.31/2000 OF MUNSIFF COURT,CHENGANNUR
REVISION PETITIONER:
N.NOORUDHEEN, AGED 66 YEARS
S/O. MYTHEENKUNJU, NIZAM MANZIL,
THRIKKODITHANAM P.O., POTTASSERI,
MAVELIMATTOM ROAD, CHANGANACHERRY,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
V.PHILIP MATHEW
SRI.GIBI.C.GEORGE
RESPONDENTS:
1 SHEELA GEORGE, PUTHEN PARAMBIL VEETTIL,
KURATTISSERY MURI, KURATTISSERY VILLAGE,
CHENGANNUR TALUK, MANNAR P.O., ALAPPUZHA
DISTRICT-689 622.
2 ANJU ELIZABETH, D/O. LATE GEORGE, PUTHEN
PARAMBIL VEETTIL, KURATTISSERY MURI,
KURATTISSERY VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK,
MANNAR P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-689 622.
3 AJITH GEORGE, S/O. LATE GEORGE, PUTHEN
PARAMBIL VEETTIL, KURATTISSERY MURI,
KURATTISSERY VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK,
MANNAR P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-689 622.
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 13.09.2023, ALONG WITH CRP NO.271/2020, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP 271&275/2020
3
O R D E R
[CRP Nos.271/2020, 275/2020]
The afore two CRPs have been heard together, since the
circumstances and facts presented in them are analogous; while the
orders impugned therein are tied to each other.
2. Compendiously, there appears to have been a decree,
issued on the compromise of the parties in O.S.No.31/2000, on the
files of the Munsiff's Court, Chengannur; but on the allegation that
certain conditions thereof had not been complied with, the petitioner
herein filed E.P.No.35/2018.
3. However, the respondents filed E.A.No.62/2019, asserting
that Execution Petition is not maintainable because it was the
petitioner, who had violated the compromise; thus being ineligible to
obtain back the secured deposit with respect to the building in
question, and this has been allowed by the learned Munsiff through
the order dated 02.03.2020, leading to dismissal of the Execution
Petition itself on the same day.
4. The petitioner challenges the order in E.A.No.62/2019
through C.R.P.No.271/2020; while he has challenged the
CRP 271&275/2020
consequential order of the learned Munsiff, dismissing the Execution
Petition in CRP No.275/2020.
5. Sri.V.Philip Mathews - learned counsel for the petitioner,
pointed out that, as evident from the order impugned in CRP
No.271/2020, the learned Execution Court appears to have been
swayed by the fact that there was another order issued in
E.A.No.18/2015 in O.S.No.110/2001 between the parties. He
submitted that since the said order was in a different Suit, relating to
a totally different cause of action, same could not have been relied
upon in allowing the Execution Application filed by his client. He,
therefore, prayed that the impugned orders be set aside.
6. The files reveal that even though service of notices on the
respondents has been completed validly, they have chosen not to be
present in person or to be represented through counsel; thus
inferentially guiding me to the impression that they have nothing to
offer in answer to the allegations made and urged in these petitions.
7. I have examined the order issued by the learned Munsiff,
which is impugned in CRP No.271/2020.
8. As rightly argued by Sri.Philip Mathews, one of the
CRP 271&275/2020
primary reasons why the learned Munsiff has found against his client
is that he did not challenge the earlier order issued in E.A.No.18/15.
However, there is no mention about the Suit in which the said E.A.
had been decided and it is asserted by Sri.Philip Mathews, as seen
above, that this was in a different one, namely O.S.No.110/2001.
Since this is a pure question of fact, it will not be possible for this
Court to decide upon the same, particularly when, as I have already
said above, the impugned order does not mention the Suit while
referring to the order in E.A.No.18/15.
9. I am, therefore, of the firm view that the entire matter
will have to be reconsidered by the learned Munsiff, adverting to all
contentions of the parties, so that it can be properly decided whether
the decree in question is capable of being put to execution.
Resultantly, these CRPs are allowed and the impugned orders,
namely that dated 02.03.2020, in E.A.No.62/2019 in E.P.No.35/2018
in O.S.No.31/2000; and that dated 02.03.2020 in E.P.No.35/2018 on
the files of the Munsiff's Court, Chengannur, are set aside.
As a consequence, the learned Execution Court will reconsider
E.A.No.62/2019 filed by the respondents, after affording necessary
CRP 271&275/2020
opportunity of being heard to both sides; thus culminating in
appropriate fresh orders thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but
not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
Needless to say, if the afore Court is to find that the Execution
Petition is not maintainable, it would be certainly up to it to issue
appropriate consequential orders therein.
Sd/-
RR DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
