Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 995 (KER)

RAMESH BABU v. DEVARAJAN, S/O. KOCHU KUNJU

2016-11-17

K.RAMAKRISHNAN

body2016
JUDGMENT : This is a petition filed by the petitioners seeking a direction to be given to the Principal Munsiff, Kollam under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. It is alleged in the petition that the respondent filed OS.No.1069/2008 on the file of the Principal Munsiff Court, Kollam and the defendants made some counter claim in respect of the same property and the suit and the counter claim were partly allowed evidenced by Ext.P1 decree. Though it was challenged up to this court by filing RSA.No.305/2015 by the plaintiff, that was dismissed. Thereafter the defendants filed Ext.P3 execution petition as EP.No.165/2015 and the plaintiff filed EP.No.58/2016 to execute the respective decrees in his favoaur. The defendants filed Ext.P5 objection to the execution petition filed by the petitioners. There was an order passed by the court below and the petitioners filed Ext.P6 review petition and also Ext.P7 petition but those petitions were dismissed by the court below. Though they applied for carbon copy, the same has not been issued. The respondent is trying to execute the decree. So the petitioners have no other remedy except to approach this court seeking the following reliefs: i. To give a direction to the court below to give the carbon copy of the order dated 8.11.2016 in EP.No.58/2016 on the file of the Principal Munsiff Court, Kollam within a time frame fixed by this court. ii. To give a direction to the court below not to proceed with the execution proceedings till the defendants are given the copy of the order dated 8.11.2016. iii. To give a direction to the court below to dispose of both the executions jointly. iv. To give a direction to the court below that the portion of the building which is coming in the plaint A schedule property after demarcation of the boundaries of plaint A and B schedule properties alone shall be given in possession to the plaintiff. 3. Since a caveat was filed the respondent herein through Sri. Saju K. Panicker, the petitioners were directed to give notice to him. Accordingly he also entered appearance. So service complete. 4. Heard Sri. C. Rajendran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. Saju K. Panicker, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 5. 3. Since a caveat was filed the respondent herein through Sri. Saju K. Panicker, the petitioners were directed to give notice to him. Accordingly he also entered appearance. So service complete. 4. Heard Sri. C. Rajendran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. Saju K. Panicker, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 5. The main prayer in the petition is that though a carbon copy application has been filed on 8.11.2016 on the date on which the impugned orders have been passed, the same has not been issued so far. The petitioners want to challenge the same before the appropriate forum and the delivery is now posted to tomorrow and if the execution petition is not stayed, they will be put to serious hardship. This was opposed by the counsel appearing for the respondent. Considering the fact that a carbon copy application has been filed and carbon copy has not been obtained, so far, it is necessary to issue some direction to the court below to issue carbon copy at the earliest possible time and till the carbon copy is issued, the execution proceedings will have to be kept in abeyance. So the petition is disposed of as follows: The Principal Munsiff, Kollam is directed to issue carbon copy of the order dated 8.11.2016 in EP.No.58/2016 in the review application filed by the petitioners, if not already granted, within a week from today. Till then, execution in EP.No.58/2016 in OS.No.1069/2008 of Principal Munsiff Court, Kollam is directed to be kept in abeyance. If no carbon copy application is filed, then this order will not affect the court below to proceed with the execution. Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this judgment to the court below over phone today itself followed by Fax.