Kerala High Court
Unathil Krishnan vs Unathil Ravi on 16 February, 2024
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 27TH MAGHA, 1945
OP(C) NO. 466 OF 2014
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT OS 139/2010 OF MUNSIFF COURT,
PAYYANNUR
PETITIONER:
UNATHIL KRISHNAN
S/O CHATU ANTHITHIRIYAN
AGED 59 YEARS
KOROM AMSOM DESOM, THALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR
DISTRICT, CHALAKODE P.O., PIN: 670 307.
BY ADVS.
SRI.MATHEW KURIAKOSE
SRI.G.GIREESH
RESPONDENT:
UNATHIL RAVI
S/O CHATU ANTHITHIRIYAN
AGED 52 YEARS
KOROM AMSOM DESOM, THALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR
DISTRICT, CHALAKODE P.O., PIN: 670 307.
BY ADV SRI.M.SASINDRAN
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2
O.P.(C) NO.466 OF 2014
C.S.DIAS, J.
----------------------------------------------------
O.P.(C) No. 466 of 2014
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of February, 2024
ORDER
The Original Petition is filed to set aside Ext.P4 order
and dismiss Ext.P2 application.
2. The brief facts leading to Ext.P4 order are: the
respondent had filed the suit for decree of permanent
prohibitory injunction, to restrain the petitioner from
obstructing a road leading to the property of the
respondent. During the course of the proceedings, the
petitioner and respondent arrived at a compromise.
Consequently, the suit was decreed as per Ext.P1
compromise statement, wherein the petitioner agreed to
execute a registered document in favour of the respondent
in respect of pathway leading to the plaint scheduled
property. However, as the respondent failed to pay the
balance sale consideration as agreed in Ext.P1 compromise
O.P.(C) NO.466 OF 2014
statement, the deed was not executed. Then, the
respondent filed Ext.P2 application under Section 28 of the
Specific Relief Act (in short, 'Act') to direct the petitioner
to execute the deed. Even though the petitioner had
opposed the application through Ext.P3 counter statement,
by the impugned Ext.P4 order, the Court below allowed
Ext.P2 application. Ext.P4 is patently erroneous, illegal and
improper. Hence, the original petition.
3. Heard; Sri. Mathew Kuriakose, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Sri. M. Sasidaran, the
learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
4. The specific contention of the petitioner is that,
Ext.P2 application filed under Section 28 of the Act is not
maintainable, instead the respondent had to invoke Order
21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to execute Ext.P1
compromise. Finding force in the above contention, this
Court had, by order dated 17.01.2023, allowed the original
petition and set aside Ext.P4 order.
O.P.(C) NO.466 OF 2014
5. Subsequently, the respondent filed R.P.
No.540/2023, to review the order dated 17.01.2023, on the
ground that during the pendency of the original petition,
the court below had executed the conveyance deed in
favour of the respondent. Therefore, the original petition
had become infructuous. On a consideration of the above
fact, by order dated 16.11.2023, this Court allowed the
Review Petition and set aside the judgment dated
17.01.2023. Consequently, the original petition was
restored to file.
6. It is not disputed that during the pendency of the
original petition, the court below had executed a
conveyance deed in favour of the respondent and his wife,
who have subsequently transferred the property in favour
of the third party. The above transactions happened during
the pendency of the original petition because there was no
interim order in force.
O.P.(C) NO.466 OF 2014
7. The fact remains that Ext.P1 compromise has been
enforced by the Court below by executing the conveyance
deed in favour of the respondent and his wife, who in turn
have sold the property in favour of a third party. Therefore,
I am of the definite view that nothing survives in the
original petition. It would be hyper-technical and a futile
exercise to set aside Ext.P4 order and relegate the
respondent to invoke his right under Order 21 of the Code
of Civil Procedure to enforce Ext.P1 compromise, after the
compromise decree has been enforced. It is to be
remembered that processual rules are handmaids of
justice. Ultimately, justice has prevailed by the
enforcement of a compromise after a decade. Therefore, I
am of the view that the original petition has become
infructuous.
Resultantly, the Original Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
C.S. DIAS
JUDGE
BR
O.P.(C) NO.466 OF 2014
APPENDIX OF OP(C) 466/2014
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPROMISE PETITION IN
O.S NO.139/2010 ON THE FILES OF THE
MUNSIFF COURT, PAYYANNUR.
EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION WITH AFFIDAVIT
IN I.A NO.1265/2013 IN O.S. NO.139/2010
ON THE FILES OF THE MUNSIFF COURT,
PAYYANNUR.
EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION IN I.A
NO.1265/2013 IN O.S. NO.139/2010 ON THE
FILES OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, PAYYANNUR.
EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22/1/2014 IN
I.A NO.1265/2013 IN OS NO.139/2010 OF THE
MNSIFF OF PAYYANNUR.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL
