IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 3RD APRIL 2009 / 13TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 108 of 2009(K) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. DR.SUBHASH P.M., S/O.P.O.MATHEW, AGED 58 YEARS, MIG-2, GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI-20. 2. MRS.SASI SUBHASH, W/O.DR.SUBHASH, MIG-2, GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI-20. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAMESH BABU RESPONDENT : ---------------------- THE GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI-20. ADV. SRI.M.K.THANKAPPAN,SC,GCDA,GREATER COCH FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 108/ 2009 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE 2ND ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED 29/10/2002 IN O.S. NO.1924/2000. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT DATED 30/11/2005 IN A.S. NO.60/2003. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22/11/2007 IN R.S. A NO.973/2006. EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION ALONG WITH THE AFFIDAVIT. EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18/06/2008. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE scm ANTONY DOMINIC, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 108 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioners submit that the first petitioner was allotted Plot No. 2 under the M.I.G. Scheme of the GCDA. Subsequently, it was transferred to the second petitioner's name with the approval of the respondent. 2. There was a dispute as to whether sale consideration was paid in full. This dispute was the subject matter of O.S.No.1924/2000 on the file of the 2nd Additional Munsiff Court Ernakulam. The suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner by Exhibit p1 judgment. Appeal, SLP, and Review Petition filed by the GCDA were all dismissed confirming Exhibit P1 judgment. Therefore, as on date there cannot be any dispute regarding satisfaction of the sale consideration. 3. According to the petitioners, it was because of the on going litigation between the parties that execution of the sale deed got delayed. In this writ petition the prayer sought is to require the respondent to execute the sale deed in favour of the second petitioner within a time frame. W.P.(C) No. 108/2009 2 4. Heard the standing counsel appearing for the respondent. 5. Although, the respondent accepts the facts that dispute between the petitioners and the respondent regarding the adequacy of the payments made, is concluded as per concurrent judgments referred to above, according to them, they are yet to receive confirmation from their Counsel regarding the dismissal of the Review Petition. 6. However Exhibit R1© produced by the respondent along with their counter affidavit itself shows that their counsel has informed them that the review petition has been dismissed. If that be so, there cannot be any justification for further delay, on the ground that confirmation from the counsel has not been received. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to execute sale deed in favour of the second petitioner within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE scm