IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2008 / 9TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 3349 of 2008(W) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------ GOPALAN, S/O. KARAPPAN, THALAMUNDA KIZHAKKE PURAKKAL HOUSE, HAVING PERMANENT ADDRESS AT C/O.GOPALA KAMMATH, THAMMANAM P.O., KARANAKODAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.RAMAN KARTHA RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI, S/O. KRISHNAN NAMBOOTHIRI, PADINJARE KARUTHEDATHU MANAKKAL, PUZHAMBRATH, RESIDING AT MANNARMOOLA, PEROORKKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI, S/O. SANKARANARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI, PUZHAMBRATHU KASIPPULLY MANA, THALAMUNDA, EDAPPAL. 3. VASUDEVAN NAMBOOTHIRI, S/O. PARAMESWARAN NAMBOOTHIRI,PERUMBADATH MANAKKAL ELANGALLUR. 4. SOOLAPANI VARRIER, S/O. ITTICHIRI VARASYAR, THALAMUNDA VARRIAM, EDAPPAL. 5. THALAMUNDA KSHETHRA SAMRAKSHANA SAMITHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SREEDHARAN, EDAPPAL, THALAMUNDA. WP(C) NO: 349/2008 6. NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI, S/O. NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI,PUZHAMBRATH MANAKKAL, THALAMUNDA, EDAPPAL. 7. THE LAND TRIBUNAL, PONNANI. R7 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. R. BINDU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.C. NO. 3349 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 29th day of January, 2008. J U D G M E N T This writ petition represents the theory of long delay of a civil litigation. A suit which was instituted in the year 1977 still remains without the usufructs of the decree being enjoyed by the successful party. The matter went up to the Apex Court and the Apex Court remanded the second appeal and thereafter this Court considered the second appeal and passed a judgment against the present writ petitioner and thereafter the Court below in implementation of the decree has ordered delivery of the property. 2. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the Land Tribunal had issued certificate of purchase and therefore the decree is not executable. He has also raised the contention that the identification of the property is not proper for effecting delivery. What is to be delivered and what is the subject matter has already been decided and W.P.C 3349 OF 2008 -:2:- concluded by judgment and decrees of the Courts. It is only that concluded decree that has been put in execution and delivery is ordered. These objections cannot be sustained and there must be a limit for protraction of the proceedings. I decline to exercise my jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and therefore the writ petition is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-