IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID MONDAY, THE 27TH JUNE 2011 / 6TH ASHADHA 1933 OP(C).No. 1796 of 2011(O) ------------------------- OS.300/1982 of MUNSIFF COURT,CHAVAKKAD .................... PETITIONER -------------------- KUNNATH MOIDU,S/O.KOYAKUTTY,AKALAD DESOM,PUNNAYUR AMSOM,CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR. K.RAMACHANDRAN SMT.S.JAYASREE RESPONDENT: --------------- ACHUTHAN,S/O.KADAYAMMAR AYYAPPAN, PUNNAYUR AMSOM,CHAVAKKAD TALUK,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN 680 506. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(C).No. 1796 of 2011(O) APPENDIX -------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ---------------------------------- P1:- TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN E.P.1/06 IN O.S.300/82 P2:- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT.2.9.10 IN WP(C) NO.16494/09 P3:- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT.8.12.10 IN OP(C) 1037/10 P4:- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.19.3.11 IN E.A.5/11 AND E.A.9/11 IN E.P.1/06 IN O.S.300/82 P5:- TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION E.A.44/11 IN E.P.1/06 WHICH IS DT.12.1.11 RESPPONDENT'S EXHIBITS :- NIL //TRUE COPY// PS TO JUDGE HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. ------------------------------- O.P.(C). NO.1796 OF 2011 ------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2011 JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed challenging the common order dated 19/3/2011 in E.A.Nos.5/2011 and 9/2011 in E.P.No.1/2006 in O.S.No.300/1982. Petitioner herein is the judgment debtor in E.P.No.1/2006. E.A.No.9/2011 is a petition filed by the judgment debtor requesting for a survey measurement of the decree schedule property with reference to the documents. The connected E.A.No.5/2011 is filed by the decree holder requesting the court to give direction to the commissioner to take immediate steps for execution and registration of the documents as directed in the decree. The decree was passed pursuant to the written compromise filed by the parties. As per the compromise, the judgment debtor agreed to assign an extent of 60 cents to the decree holder and the decree holder in turn agreed to execute a sale deed in favour of the judgment debtor for the remaining extent of 91 ¼ cents. -2- O.P.(C).No.1796/2011 2. The execution court on facts held that the request of the judgment debtor for remitting the report is without any merit and therefore liable to be declined. The court below considered the contentions of the respective parties and held that the judgment debtor did not take care to examine the commissioner to prove that the patta was not verified before the measurement and that he has no case that any property which is not included in the patta has been included in the sketch. The court below also observed that the judgment debtor has no complaint about any difference between the boundaries stated in the compromise and the commissioner's report. In these circumstances, the court below dismissed E.A.No.9/2011 and allowed E.A.No.5/2011 directing the Commissioner to give notice to both sides requiring them to prepare and produce the draft deeds or mutual assignment of the properties as directed in the decree and issued other appropriate directions. The order passed by the learned Munsiff does not suffer from any legal infirmity and this Court is of the view that no justifiable grounds are made out to -3- O.P.(C).No.1796/2011 interfere with the order under challenge, which is produced as Ext.P4 in this original petition. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent filed a petition to review of the impugned order and the same is pending consideration. The counsel also submits that the petitioner also intends to file a petition seeking review of the order before the court below, if so advised. Without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to move a petition seeking review of the order under challenge this original petition is disposed of. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. kcv.