IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 19TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 28TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 28011 of 2008(I) -------------------------- CMA.110/2007 of D.C & SESSIONS COURT,TRIVANDRUM OS.169/1996 of SUB COURT, NEDUMANGAD (EP 32/07) .................... PETITIONER/ PLAINTIFF/DECREE HOLDER: ----------------------------------- RAJAN, AGED 49, S/O.KUNJAN, VALIKKONATHU PALAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, THONNAKKAL P.O. VALLOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.V.VIJULAL RESPONDENTS/ DEFENDANTS/JUDGEMENT DEBTORS: ----------------------------------------- 1. SAMBASIVAN, KUNDAYATHU MUKKAL VEEDU, MURAMEL, NANNATTUKAVU, POTHENCODE P.O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. 2. PARVATHY KRISHNAMMA OF DO. BY /- THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/09/2008, THE COURT ON 19/09/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.RAMKUMAR, J. ==================== W.P.(C).No.28011 of 2008 =========================== Dated this the 19th day of September, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the plaintiff in a money suit which culminated in ex-parte decree passed by the Sub Court, Attingal. Since the plaint schedule property is situated within the local limits of Sub Court, Nedumangad, the decree was transferred to that court for execution. In execution of the ex-parte decree, the plaint schedule property was purchased by the plaintiff who obtained delivery of the same. The ex-parte decree was subsequently set aside at the instance of the defendants and it came up for trial before the Sub court, Attingal. The suit was dismissed for default of the petitioner and his restoration application was dismissed against which he has filed a c.M.A.110/2007 before the District court, Thiruvananthapuram. In the meanwhile, the defendants filed an E.P. before the executing court seeking restitution and redelivery under Section 144 CPC. As per impugned order (Ext.P5), Sub court, Nedumangad has passed redelivery of the property after overruling the petitioner's objection that the E.P for redelivery is not maintainable before that court. It is the said order which is challenged in this writ petition. W.P.(C).No.28011 of 2008 2 2. By the impugned order (Ext.P5), the parties have been relegated to the original position which they occupied prior to the suit. At this stage, I am not inclined to accept the contention that application for redelivery could have been entertained only by the court which passed the decree and could not have been entertained by the court which executed the decree. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. If the petitioner has effected improvements in the property and he was having any right to do so, he can very well apply for an advocate commission for assessment of the value of improvement, if any, effected. V.RAMKUMAR JUDGE. bkn/-