IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 16259 of 2006(I) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08/06/2000 IN IA.1315/2000,IA.1316/2000 IN OS.143/1997 of MUNSIFF COURT, ALATHUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- VASUDEVAN, SON OF APPU, AGED 54 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, ANIKKOD VEEDU, MEERAKKAVU, ERIMAYOOR AMSOM, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- VISWANATHAN, SON OF APPU, AGED 39 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, ANIKKOD VEEDU, MERAKAVU, ERIMAYUR AMSOM, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: jma WP(C) No. 16259 of 2006 APPENDIX Petitioners Exhibits: Ext.P1: True copy of the application for review of judgment and decree dt. 8.6.2000 in O.S. No.143 of 1997 as I.A. No.1316 of 2006 Ext.P2: True copy of the judgment in O.S. No. 143 of 1997 of the Munsiff Court, Alathur. Ext.P3: True copy of the order dt. 17.3.2005 in I.A. No.1316 of 2006 by the Munsiff Court, Alathur. Ext.P2: True copy of the order dt. 17.1.2005 of CRP 2223/01 //True copy// P.A. to Judge K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 16259 OF 2006-I ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th November, 2009. JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P3 order passed by the Munsiff's Court Alathur on 17/3/2005 in I.A.1316/2000 in O.S.143/1997. 2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.143/1997 of the Alathur Munsiff's Court. The suit was filed by the petitioner for recovery of possession of a house property owned by him from the respondent who is his brother. The property comprises of an extent of 1 acre 86 cents of land with a building therein. The prayer for recovery of damages on account of use and occupation was also claimed. After trial, the suit was decreed. However, the Court found that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the plaint schedule property only after he surrendered certain paddy fields belonging to the respondent that were in his possession. As per the decree, the Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to claim recovery of possession of his property and the house situate therein only after a lapse of one month from the date on which he surrenders the paddy fields that were in his possession. Dissatisfied with the above condition the petitioner filed WPC 16259/2006 2 I.A.1316/2000 for review of the judgment and decree and for deleting the above condition. The petition was accompanied by another petition I.A.1315/2000 for condonation of delay. The delay in filing the review petition was subsequently condoned and the matter was considered by the Court below. As per order dated 17.3.2005 evidenced herein by Ext.P3, the Court below has dismissed the review petition. This writ petition is filed challenging the said order. 3. According to the counsel for the petitioner, there was no justification for imposing a condition that the property to which he was entitled would be delivered only after the lapse of a period of one month from the date of his surrendering the paddy fields in his possession. He prayed for deleting the condition and for providing that the surrender of the property in possession of the respective parties be done simultaneously so as to avoid further disputes and contentions. According to the counsel since the parties were at loggerheads with each other, surrender of the paddy fields in his possession would only pave the way for initiation of proceedings to cling on to possession of his house and to protract the proceedings. The contentions of the counsel for the petitioner are opposed by the counsel for the respondent. WPC 16259/2006 3 4. I have heard the respective counsel appearing for the parties. I have also considered the rival contentions, anxiously. 5. The court below has found that the grounds urged by the petitioner for review of the judgment were not sufficient for deleting the condition, in view of the limited jurisdiction available under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. The Court below has found that the judgment sought to be reviewed does not disclose any error apparent on the face of the record justifying the review thereof. Having gone through the judgment, I am also of the opinion that the judgment does not call for review since no grounds justifying review has been made out. However, the apprehensions of the counsel for the revision petitioner cannot be said to be without any basis at all, considering the fact that the parties are brothers and that their relationship is strained beyond repair. In the above circumstances, it is likely that one party may try to protract the proceedings after getting possession of the property that is, in the possession of the other. However, a solution for the above problem can be worked out without altering the terms of the decree that has become final by filing a proper execution petition and seeking orders of the Execution Court for enforcing both the conditions stipulated by the judgment and decree in question. WPC 16259/2006 4 The Execution Court has ample powers to order surrender of paddy fields on one particular date and thereafter, to pass necessary orders for ensuring that the condition regarding surrender of the house property after one month is also complied with, without any default. Therefore, giving liberty to the petitioner to file a proper Execution Petition for the above purpose, this writ petition is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 16259/2006 5 K.K.DENESAN & V. RAMKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- M.F.A.NO: ----------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Dated: