Kerala High Court
Sudha vs Saraswathy Amma on 24 June, 2025
O.P.(C) No.1445 of 2025
1
2025:KER:45735
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 3RD ASHADHA, 1947
OP(C) NO. 1445 OF 2025
AGAINST EP NO.9 OF 2016 OF MUNSIFF COURT-IV,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ARISING OUT OF OS NO.500 OF 2006 OF
MUNSIFF COURT-IV, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/OBSTRUCTION PETITIONER:
SUDHA
AGED 71 YEARS, D/O RUGMINI AMMA,
KEEZHEKALA VEEDU, EDAGRAMAM,
KARUMOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695 001.
BY ADV
SRI.R.B.BALACHANDRAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DECREE HOLDER:
1 SARASWATHY AMMA
D/O JANAKI AMMA, CHEMA VILAYIL VEEDU, EDAGRAMAM,
NEMOM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 020.
2 VAEANTHA KUMARI AMMA
D/O JANAKI AMMA, KANNANGRAHATHU VEEDU,
KALUVILAKAM, EDAGRAMAM, KARAMANA P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 002.
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
O.P.(C) No.1445 of 2025
2
2025:KER:45735
JUDGMENT
This petition is filed by the petitioner directing the
Principal Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram for issuing
certified copies of the judgment/order dated 12.06.2025
passed in EP No.9/2016 arising out of OS No.500/2006.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner is a third party objector, filed EA
No.395/2021 in EP No.9/2016 under Order XXI Rule 97 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), evidence was
adduced and finally order pronounced in open court on
12.06.25 by dismissing the IA. It is further submitted that
it is an appealable order, hence, he has to file an appeal
under Order XLI Rule 1 of CPC. The trial Court without
issuing a certified copy, passed the order for delivery of the
possession of the property. It is further contended that he
has also filed appeal before the District Court,
Thiruvananthapuram. The first appellate Court also not
2025:KER:45735
assigned a number for want of certified copy of the order of
the execution court and he also submitted that the learned
counsel filed an application for dispensing with the
production of certified copy of the order on the ground, he
is unable to get the certified copy of the order and he has
undertaken to produce the certified copy of the order after
obtaining from the execution Court. But, the IA dismissed
by the first appellate court. Therefore, he has left with any
other option, but to approach this Court for direction and
also sought for interim relief for staying the operation and
execution of the order under challenge.
4. Having heard the arguments and perused the
documents produced by the learned counsel for the
petitioner. On a perusal of the records, this petitioner filed
intervening application under order XXI Rule 97 of the CPC
and the matter is said to be heard by the execution Court
and finally dismissed the claim of the petitioner on
12.06.2025. It is well settled that the order passed by the
2025:KER:45735
execution court under Order 21 Rule 97 of the CPC is an
appealable order and the petitioner/intervenor required to
file an appeal before the appellate court under order 41
Rule 1 of CPC. The petitioner also filed IA for staying the
operation of the order by filing necessary application under
order 41 Rule 5 of the CPC.
5. Such being the case, the trial court ought to have
supplied the certified copy of the order immediately
facilitating the third party intervenor to file an appeal
before the appellate court. But, last 12 days the copies not
issued to the petitioner or supplied by the trial court. Even
though, the trial court was pronounced the order, but the
order is not yet released. Passing the order, but not
releasing the order, is nothing but denial of the reliefs and
nothing but causing injustice.
6. That apart, it is worth to mention when the same
is brought to notice of the District Judge who is the
administrative head of the district, when an application is
2025:KER:45735
filed stating that the certified copies are not furnished, the
first appellate court ought to have dispense with the
production of certified copy of the order and could have
assigned the number heard the arguments. Even, the first
appellate court not supplied the copies of the dismissal of
the application for dispensing the production of document
and also not numbered on the ground of not producing the
certified copy of the document.
7. Of course, the petitioner required to produce the
certified copy of that order, when it was challenged before
the appellate court. When the copy of the order itself is not
supplied within short/reasonable time, it is very difficult for
the petitioner/counsel to approach the appellate court. The
trial court ought to have given at least 30 days to approach
the appellate court. Without doing so, it is issued the
delivery warrant to be returned on 27.06.2025 and at one
stretch the delivery warrant is issued and another stretch
the trial court not supplied the copies, thereby injustice
2025:KER:45735
caused to the petitioner in approaching the appellate court
and also getting the stay order from the appellate court.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances, I am of
the view that it is necessary to pass an order under
challenge.
9. Accordingly, this Court passed the following
orders:-
i. The original petition is disposed of.
ii. The Principal Munsiff Court, Thiruvanan-
thapuram is directed to issue certified
copy of the order dated 12.06.2025
passed under Order XXI Rule 97 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 within 2
days from the date of receipt of the copy
of the judgment.
iii. The Registry is directed to intimate the
District Court, Thiruvananthapuram who
is the authority to monitor the issuance
2025:KER:45735
of certified copy of the orders. In respect
of non - production of certified copy of
the order, even though, orders were
passed, but not releasing the orders and
issuing copies, is nothing but denial of
justice.
iv. Until, the first appellate court passed the
order on stay application in the appeal
Suit, the order passed by the trial court
in E.P. No.9/2016 issuing the delivery
warrant is hereby stayed.
Sd/-
K. NATARAJAN
JUDGE
S.M.K.
2025:KER:45735
APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1445/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OBSTRUCTION PETITION
DATED 24.09.2021 ALONG WITH THE ENGLISH
TRANSLATION FILED BY ME THROUGH MY
POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SANTHOSH
KUMAR.S
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE
CASE IN ECOURTS DATED 12.06.2025
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
12.06.2025 FOR CARBON COPY ALONG WITH
ENGLISH TRANSLATION
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR
CERTIFIED COPIES ALONG WITH ENGLISH
TRANSLATION DATED 16/06.2025
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM
ALONG WITH A STAY PETITION DATED
19.06.2025
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION
TO ALLOW THE PETITIONER TO FILE THE
APPEAL WITHOUT CERTIFIED COPY OF THE
JUDGMENT/ ORDER DATED 19.06.2025
