IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 24TH OCTOBER 2011 / 2ND KARTHIKA 1933 OP(C).No. 2776 of 2011(O) --------------------------------------- I.A. NO.518/2010 IN O.S. NO.40/2008 OF THE SUB COURT, KOCHI. ............. PETITIONER ------------------ KUNJUMON, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. KANNAN, VYPPITHARA HOUSE, PUTHUVYPE DESOM, PUTHUVYPPU VILLAGE, PUTHUVYPE.P.O., PIN-682508. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- K.P.JOSEPH, AGED 67 YEARS, S/O. LATE K.P.POULOSE, KACHAPPILLY VEETTIL, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, THRIKANARVATTOM DESOM,ERNAKULAM NORTH.P.O.-682018. ADV. SRI.SAJI.P.JOSEPH THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P(C).No.2776 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 24th day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT Ext.P3, proceeding for delivery of property which originally belonged to the petitioner, in execution of an award of the Lok Adalath on 12.09.2009 is under challenge. According to the respondent/plaintiff, there was a registered agreement for purchase of property belonging to the petitioner for `.13,50,000/- and on the failure of petitioner to execute the sale deed, respondent filed O.S.No.40 of 2008 in the Court of learned Sub Judge, Kochi for specific performance of that agreement for sale. When that suit was pending, the matter was referred to the Lok Adalath for settlement. There, the parties are said to have settled the dispute and the Lok Adalath passed Ext.P1, award on 12.09.2009 as per which petitioner was to pay `.14,00,000/- to the respondent on order before 12.12.2009, on such payment respondent was to give up all his claims pursuant to the agreement for sale and respondent was to get refund of the court fee and sale consideration in deposit. If the amount is not paid by petitioner as aforesaid, petitioner was to execute the sale deed and withdraw the amount deposited by the respondent in Court. O.P(C).No.2776 of 2011 -: 2 :- Petitioner allegedly did not pay the amount before the time prescribed by Ext.P1, award. Thereon, on the request of respondent the Court executed the sale deed in his favour and thereafter, respondent filed Ext.P3, application for delivery of the property. Ext.P3, application is under challenge on various grounds. 2. According to the learned counsel for petitioner, collusion between the respondent and counsel for petitioner appearing in the trial court is writ large and petitioner wants to seek appropriate remedy in that view of the matter before the appropriate forum. 3. Learned counsel for respondent would contend that notice was served on petitioner directly and that memo was filed in the trial court. Learned counsel stoutly denied the allegation of collusion and submits that attempt of petitioner is to prolong the matter. 4. Now that petitioner wants permission to withdraw this original petition, I do not find reason why this Court should not grant permission. But, I make it clear that this Court has not gone into the allegations and counter allegations regarding alleged fraud or validity of the proceeding taken before the court O.P(C).No.2776 of 2011 -: 3 :- below. Resultantly this original petition is dismissed as withdrawn without prejudice to other remedies if any available to the petitioner in the matter and as provided under the law. Sd/- (THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-