IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2008 / 19TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 20702 of 2008(M) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN EP 265/97,EA 117/04 IN OS.38/1988 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,KOCHI .................... PETITIONER: PETITIONER ---------------------- NARESHKUMAR AGARWAL, S/O.LATE DWARAKA PRASAD, AGED 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT 8/547 AYILYAM, OPPOSITE T.D. HIGH SCHOOL, MATTANCHERRY, COCHIN - 2. BY ADV. SMT.JAYASREE MANOJ RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT ----------------------- 1. P.R.AMMU, 16/688A, T & R CROSS ROAD, THOPUMPADY. 2. BANK OF INDIA, (SUCCESSOR - IN - INTEREST OF THE PARUR CENTRAL BANK LTD) UDYOGAMANDAL BRANCH, ELOOR, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 3. ANAND M.CHANDRAN, AYILYAM, 8/166, OPPOSITE T.D.HIGH SCHOOL, COCHIN - 2. 4. ADARSH M.CHANDRAN, -DO- 5. ARCHANA M.CHANDRAN, -DO- BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.20702 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 10th July, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioner was originally a claim petitioner in E.A.No.117 of 2004 in E.P.No.265 of 2007, which was dismissed by the executing court in 2004 itself. Subsequently, executing court directed delivery of the property. Petitioner attempted to cause obstruction to the delivery. Decree holder sought police protection. It was granted. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to quash the order directing delivery contending that when petitioner caused obstruction, the only remedy available to the decree holder is to remove the obstruction as provided under Rule 97 of Order XXI of Code of Civil Procedure, and learned Munsiff should not have directed delivery with police aid. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard. 3. On hearing the learned counsel and on going through the petition, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the W.P.(C) No.20702 of 2008 2 impugned order warranting interference. Petitioner who approached the court contending that decree is not binding on him and he being a tenant under the judgment debtor is entitled to protect his possessory right as a tenant, is not entitled to cause obstruction to the delivery when that claim petition was dismissed more than four years back and that order has become final. Learned Munsiff taking into consideration the fact that obstruction is being caused by the same claim petitioner, who had earlier claimed right which was rejected by the court and finding that the order has become final, allowed the decree holder to take delivery with police aid. I do not find any reason to interfere with that order. The learned counsel then submitted that petitioner may be permitted to surrender possession after finding out an alternate residence. When the claim petition itself was dismissed in 2004, I do not find that in the interest of justice, petitioner is to be granted further time. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj.