IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No.33683 of 2008 -------------------------- AS.198/2007 of ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE & WAKF TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM OS.113/2004 of MUN-MAGI COURT, SASTHAMCOTTA .................... PETITIONER: --------------- ALIYAMMA RAHELAMMA, AGED 60, RESIDING AT SHARONE BHAVAN, MANAPPALLY THEKK MURI, PAVUMBA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. VIJAYAN PILLAI, S/O. SREEDHARAN KURUP, AGED 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT KUNNILAZHIKATHU VEEDU, PADINJATTAMURI, SOORANADU NORTH VILLAGE. 2. NASEEMA,W/O SIDDIQUE, AGED 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT KAIYALATHU VEEDU, ADINADU THEKKUM MURI, ADINADU VILLAGE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------ W. P. C. No.33683 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 14th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT The prayer in this Writ Petition filed by the petitioner who is the first defendant in O.S.113/04 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Sasthamcotta is to recall A.S.198/07 filed by the first respondent against the decree and judgment in O.S.113/04 aforesaid from the file of the Additional District Judge and Wakf Tribunal, Kollam to the file of the District Judge and to dispose it of expeditiously within a period to be fixed by this Court. The reason for such a prayer is that the appellant therein is granted a decree by the court below restraining the petitioner from evicting him forcefully. It is also submitted that under the impugned decree, allowing the counter W. P. C. No.33683 of 2008 -2- claim advanced by the petitioner/first defendant a decree has been granted in her favour to evict the appellant/first respondent and that in view of the pendency of the appeal she is not able to evict the appellant. In fact the grievance attempted to be highlighted is illusory. Though the decree provides that the appellant shall not evict the first respondent forcefully, the same decree enables her to get possession of the scheduled building evicting the first respondent who is the appellant in the appeal. Executing the decree and evicting the appellant is not forceful eviction. The petitioner shall proceed to execute the decree unless there is a stay obtained from A.S.198/07 by the appellant. W. P. C. No.33683 of 2008 -3- This Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions. K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE kns/-