IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 4TH OCTOBER 2011 / 12TH ASWINA 1933 OP(C).No. 3212 of 2011(O) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26/09/2011 IN EP.22/2011 IN OS.228/2001 of MUNSIFF COURT, N.PARAVUR ......................... PETITIONER(S): JUDGMENT DEBTOR ----------------------------------- GEETHA BEEVI, AGED 48 YEARS, W/O. SULAIMAN, PUTHENKOTTAKKAL, VALLUVALLY KARA, KOTTUVALLY. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.MANZOOR ALI SRI.N.M.SIYAD RESPONDENT(S): DECREE HOLDER ---------------------------- GOPALAKRISHNAN, S/O. VASUDEVAN NAIR, ANJAKULATH, RESIDING AT PRASANTHI, ALAMTHURUTHU KARA, VADAKKEKARA VILLAGE, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER DINESH KUMAR, RESIDING AT SREEVILASATH, MACHANTHURUTH KARA, VADAKKEKARA VILLAGE - 683 513. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SU O.P.C.NO.3212/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1- COPY OF THE EXECUTION PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT. P2- COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN THE EXECUTION PROCEEDINGS. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE SU THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== O.P(C) No.3212 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 04th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T Judgment debtor in E.P.No.22 of 2011 in O.S. No.228 of 2001 of the court of learned Munsiff, North Parur has come up with this Original Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution seeking time to vacate the premises. A decree for eviction was passed against petitioner, a tenant. That was confirmed in appeal and second appeal. When the second appeal was disposed of, petitioner was granted time to vacate the premises on condition that petitioner shall file affidavit in the executing court to vacate the premises after three months. Admittedly that was not done. Now it is contended that there was some sort of settlement between the parties after the judgment in the second appeal and hence petitioner did not file affidavit as directed in the second appeal. I am not inclined to think that in the above circumstances this Court should invoke the power under Article 227 of the Constitution to grant time. I make it clear that this judgment will not stand in the way of petitioner approaching the court which disposed of the second appeal and seeking appropriate relief. Original Petition is closed of with the above observation. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv