IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2011 / 22ND ASHADHA 1933 OP(C).No. 2084 of 2011(O) -------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13/06/2011 IN EA.92/11,EP.304/09 IN OS.41/1981 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. .................... PETITIONER -------------- 1. RAVEENDRAN, S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN, KIZHAKKETHOPE VEEDU, PALLIMUKKU, PETTAH, TRIVANDRUM. 2. RAMESHAN, DO. DO. DO. 3. RAMACHANDRAN, S/O.AMBUJAKSHY, DO. DO. 4. RAJENDRAN, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.SUBHASH SYRIAC RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. PUTHENCOIL BHAGAVATHY TEMPLE, PETTAH, PATHIRIKKARI MURI, VANCHIYOOR VILLAGE, TRIVANDRUM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, TEMPLE COMMITTEE. 2. KUNJUKRISHNAN, PANGARATHOPPU VEEDU, PATHIRIKKARI MURI, VANCHIYOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. KOCHUMANI MADHAVAN, PANGARATHOPPU VEEDU, PATHIRIKKARI MURIM,VANCHIYOOR VILLAGE,TRIVANDRUM. 4. NANAN CHELLAPPAN, VARUVILAKATHU VEEDU, PATHIRIKKARI MURIM,VANCHIYOOR VILLAGE,TRIVANDRUM. svs ............2/-... ...2... OPC.NO.2084/2011 5. VELAPPAN, VARUVILAKATHU VEEDU, PATHIRIKKARI MURIM,VANCHIYOOR VILLAGE,TRIVANDRUM. 6. SIVANKUTTY, CHERIAKODAYIL, VARUVILAKATHU VEEDU, PALKULANGARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 7. RADHEDEVAN, CHERIAKODAYIL, VARUVILAKATHU VEEDU, PALKULANGARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 8. VAMADEVAN, PANGARATHOPPU VEEDU,PATHIRIKKARI MURI, VANCHIYOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 9. SATHYANATHAN,KUZHIVILAKATHU VEEDU,PATHIRIKKARI MURI, VANCHIYOOR VILAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 10. T.K.DEVAN, PINATTUMOOTTU VEEDU, PATHIRIKKARI MURI, VANCHIYOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 11. G.GOPAKUMAR,CHITTATTUVILAKATHU VEEDU,PATHIRIKKARI MURI, VANCHIYOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.M.R.ANANDAKUTTAN SMT.M.A.ZOHRA SRI.A.MANOHARAN SRI.MAHESH ANANDAKUTTAN THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs O.P.(C). NO. 2084/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN AS. NO.595/1986 OF THE 2ND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. P2: COPY OF DELAY CONDONATION PETITION FILED IN MJA.288/2011. P3: COPY OF THE MJC NO.288/2011. P4: COPY OF THE APPLICATION E.A.NO.92/2011 IN E.P. NO.304/2009 IN O.S. NO.41/1981 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. P5: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13/06/011 IN E.A. NO.92/2011 IN E.P. NO.304/2009 IN O.S. NO.41/1981 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.2084 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of July, 2011. JUDGMENT Petitioners are judgment debtors in O.S.No.41 of 1981 of the court of learned Principal Munsiff, Thiruvananthapuram. First respondent obtained, way back in 1985 a decree for recovery of possession. First appellate court confirmed the decree against which petitioners preferred a Second Appeal in this Court as S.A.No.347 of 1993. That Second Appeal was dismissed for default. Petitioners filed M.J.C.No.3 of 2007 which met with the same fate on 01.04.2008. Petitioners, undaunted filed yet another application, M.J.C.No.288 of 2011 (seeking restoration of the appeal) obviously with an application to condone the delay. Those applications are pending consideration. In the meantime the first respondent in whose favour a decree was passed and confirmed by the appellate court moved the executing court in E.P.No.304 of 2009 to get delivery of possession. That execution petition was resisted by petitioners on the ground of limitation. Executing court found that execution petition is not barred by limitation. That order is under challenge in this Original Petition. 2. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the only request being made in this petition is to keep the execution proceeding in abeyance until M.J.C. No.288 of 2011 is disposed of by this Court. OP(C) No.2084/2011 2 Learned counsel submitted that if before that M.J.C. is disposed of the decree is executed, petitioners will be put to irreparable loss. It is pointed out by learned counsel that this Court on 30.06.2011 has ordered that delivery in E.P.No.304 of 2009 (in O.S.No.41 of 1981) will stand adjourned for a period of one month. Learned counsel for first respondent has contended that attempt of petitioners is to somehow prolong execution of the decree. It is pointed out by learned counsel that without substance a plea of limitation was raised by petitioners which was rightly found against by the executing court. In the circumstances the request to keep delivery proceeding in abeyance until disposal of M.J.C.No.288 of 2011 may not be entertained. 3. Now that correctness of the order passed by the executing court that execution petition is not barred by limitation is not challenged before me, the only question is whether until M.J.C.No.288 of 2011 is disposed of delivery proceeding should be kept in abeyance. In deciding that, I should note that this Court as referred supra on 30.06.2011 had directed that having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case delivery proceeding will stand in abeyance for a period of one month. There is no reason why I should differ from that order. OP(C) No.2084/2011 3 Resultantly this Original Petition is disposed of directing that delivery proceeding in E.P.No.304 of 2009 in O.S.No.41 of 1981 of the court of learned Principal Munsiff, Thiruvananthapuram will stand in abeyance until M.J.C.No.288 of 2011 is disposed of. Learned Principal Munsiff is directed to keep the execution petition alive until then. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks