IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 2ND MARCH 2009 / 11TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 5267 of 2009(O) ------------------------- OP.168/2007 of PRL.M.C.,TRIVANDRUM RCP.98/1984 of I ADDL.M.C.,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.M. NOUSHAD, S/O. LATE SAFIYA BEEVI, THOPPIL HOUSE, KOTTAKALATH CHERI, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAJESH KANNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. M. JAMEL, S/O. LATE MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA, PROPRIETOR, JAMAL HOTEL, RESIDING AT VAYALARIKATH PUTHEN VEEDU, POWER HOUSE ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. M. BADARUDDIN, S/O. MOHAMMED MUSTAFFA, RESIDING AT VAYALARIKATH PUTHEN VEEDU, POWER HOUSE ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O. PUSHKARA PANICKER, OLIPPUVILA VEEDU, MUTTAKADU, KALLIYOOR NEYYATINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.K.B.PRADEEP FOR R1 & 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ W.P.(C)No. 5267 of 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The learned Munsiff has forwarded a report and we are convinced on reading the report that the learned Munsiff is not to be blamed for the delay which has been caused in the matter so far. 2. We dispose of the writ petition directing the learned Munsiff to remind himself that it is the duty of the execution court to make every endeavour to see that the decree holder secures the fruits of the decree/order. We are told that the learned Munsiff expressed diffidence in proceeding further in the matter due to pendency of the writ petition. The learned Munsiff will ensure that the execution petition is finally disposed of at the earliest and at any rate within three weeks of receiving a copy of this judgment. Sri.K.B.Pradeep, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the execution court cannot order delivery in the absence of a valid plan and building permit issued by the local WPC.No.5267/2009 2 authority. Sri K.Rajesh Kannan, learned counsel for the respondents submits that eviction has been ordered on the ground under Section 11(4) (1) also. If the execution court notices that an order of eviction under Section 11 (4) (1) has been finally passed, that court does not have to worry about the availability of current plan and licence. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE dpk