IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 19TH MAGHA 1932 OP(C).No. 517 of 2011(O) ------------------------ OS.176/2002 of MUNSIFF COURT, ETTUMANOOR .................... PETITIONER : ------------------- THRESSIAMMA JOSEPH, AGED 70 YEARS, W/O.JOSEPH, THEKKEPURATHU HOUSE, PADINJATTUMBHAGOM KARA, ATHIRAMPUZHA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.RAJAGOPAL PADIPPURACKAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ABRAHAM, S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 58 YEARS, ILLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KALLARA KARA, DO. VILLAGE (OWNER, CENTURY FINANCE AT THALAYOLAPARAMBU 686 611). 2. MAYA REJI, W/O.REJI, AGED 37 YEARS, AZHAKEDATH HOUSE, NEENDOOR KARA, KAIPUZHA VILLAGE, PIN 686 601. 3. MATHUKUTTY, AGED 69 YEARS, CHENACKAL HOUSE, NEERIKKADU KARA, AYARKUNNAM VILLAGE, NEERIKKADU P.O PIN 686 584. 4. MANU MATHEW, S/O.MATHUKUTTY, AGED 32 YEARS, CHENACKAL HOUSE, NEERIKKADU KARA, AYARKUNNAM VILLAGE, NEERIKKADU P.O. PIN 686 584. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ---------------------------------- O.P.(C).No.517 of 2011 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner filed O.S.No.176 of 2002 on the file of the court of the Munsiff of Ettumanoor for setting aside the documents, injunction, and other consequential reliefs. The plaint was rejected under Order VII Rule 11(b) C.P.C. The defendants had filed a counter claim. The counter claim was decreed for fixation of boundary. The petitioner filed A.S.No.27 of 2011 on the file of the court of the Additional District Judge, Kottayam against the decree passed in the counter claim. There was a delay of 178 days in filing the appeal. I.A.No.112 of 2007 was filed to condone the delay. It is stated that the delay condonation petition is posted to 1.3.2011. 2. Meanwhile, execution proceedings were initiated O.P.(C) No.517/2011 2 as E.P.No.38 of 2010. It is stated that delivery was effected on 29.1.2011 as per Exhibit P5. 3. The reliefs prayed for in the Original Petition are the following : "(i) To set aside Ext.P5 and direct the court below to kept in abeyance all further proceedings in E.P.No.38/10 in O.S.No. 176/02 on the file of Munsiff Court, Ettumanoor ; (ii) To grant such other reliefs as are deem just and proper in the interest of justice." 4. The relief prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted as Exhibit P5 cannot be challenged in an Original Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. If the petitioner has any grievance in the matter of delivery, her remedy is to file an application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. O.P.(C) No.517/2011 3 5. In the Original Petition, a grievance is put forward that the respondents are making hasty attempts to make some construction works in the property and they are also making attempts to alienate the property. It is also stated that pending disposal of the application for condonation of delay in A.S.No.27 of 2011, if the respondents were to do so, the petitioner would be put to substantial prejudice. No relief is asked for on that account. Even assuming that such a relief is claimed, it cannot be granted in this Original Petition. The petitioner can very well move the appellate court for appropriate reliefs. With the above observation, the Original Petition is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl