IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2009 / 27TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 37585 of 2008(Y) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN EP.103/2008 IN OS.183/1965 of MUNSIFF COURT,MUVATTUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- THOMAS JOSEPH, S/O. IYPE THOMAS, AGED 53 YEARS, MARUTHUWAMALAYIL, PAINGOTOOR KARA, KADAVOOR VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.K.RAMACHANDRAN, MR.S.SREEDEV. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- IYPE XAVIOUR, S/O.IYPE, AGED 52 YEARS, MARUTHUWAMALAYIL (VADAKKEKARAPUTHENPURAYIL) PAINGOTTOR KARA, KADAVOOR VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DIST. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.37585/2008 Y APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 30/10/08 IN E.P.NO.103/08 IN O.S.NO.183/65 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.37585 OF 2008 (Y) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the executing court (Munsiff Court, Muvattupuzha), dismissing an execution petition filed in respect of a decree passed in a suit for partition holding that it is barred by limitation. The decree admittedly was passed on 29.10.1965 but engrossed on stamp paper only on 6.8.2008. Engrossment of the decree in the stamp paper has to be reckoned as the date of commencement of the period of execution of the decree was the plea canvassed by the petitioner/decree holder before the executant court. The learned Munsiff, taking note of the decision rendered by the apex court in Chiranji Lal v. Haridas (2005 (2) KLT 1018 (SC)) negatived that contention and dismissed the application for execution. Ext.P1 is the copy of that order. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P1 order is challenged in the writ petition. WPC.37585/08 2 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find no impropriety or illegality in the order passed by the learned Musniff. It is the date of the decree and not the engrossment of the decree in the stamp paper that has to be taken for reckoning the date of commencement of the decree for execution. However, the petitioner/decree holder can have recourse to whatever rights available under law to safeguard his interest over the property allotted in his favour under the decree passed in the suit for partition. Reserving his right to take appropriate measures before the proper forum, as provided by law, if so adviced, the writ petition is closed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp