IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2010 / 1ST ASWINA 1932 OP(C).NO. 31 OF 2010(O) ----------------------- EP.414/2008 OF II ADDL.M.C.,NEYYATTINKARA .................... 2ND DEFENDANT/1ST DECREE HOLDER --------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH NADAR RAJAYYAN, S/O.JOSEPH, KALAMGARUVIL PUTHENVEEDU, MARATHATHOOR DESOM, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BINDU SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): 8TH DEFENDANT/JUDGMENT DEBTOR ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. AVEL ENOSE, KARTHIKAPPALLY VEEDU, MARATHATHOOR DESOM, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. *2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT (DELETED). *RESPONDENT NO.2 IS DELETED FROM THE ARRAY OF PARTIES VIDE JUDGMENT THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== O.P(C) No.31 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T Respondent No.2 is the Sub Inspector of Police. He is not a party to the suit. Hence respondent No.2 is deleted from the array of parties. 2. Decree holder No.1 in E.P.No.414 of 2008 in O.S. No.117 of 1979 of the court of learned Munsiff, Neyyattinkara is the petitioner before me. That was a suit for partition of mortgage right and pursuant to the final decree, petitioner got delivery of property. After demarcating boundaries E.P. No.414 of 2008 was closed. Petitioner alleges that respondent thereafter trespassed into the property delivered to him and demolished the existing boundary. Thereupon petitioner wanted the executing court to take further action in the matter and to restore (or reopen as the case may be) E.P. No.414 of 2008. Petitioner filed E.A. No.911 of 2010 for the said purpose. That application is pending consideration of the executing court. Petitioner seeks a declaration that respondent has no authority to trespass into his property, appoint the very same Advocate Commissioner for demarcating O.P(C) No.31 of 2010 -: 2 :- the boundary and other reliefs including a direction to the learned Munsiff to dispose of E.A. No.911 of 2010 expeditiously. Learned counsel states that respondent is persisting in his attempt to trespass into the property. 3. Since according to the petitioner matter relates to execution, discharge and satisfaction of the decree which according to the petitioner came under Section 47 of the Code of Civil procedure and petitioner has accordingly filed E.A. No.911 of 2010 in E.P. No.414 of 2008 (in O.S. No.118 of 1979) proper course open to the petitioner is to pursue the application and seek appropriate relief from the executing court. This Court is not required to grant any relief as prayed at the first instance. Having regard to the urgency pleaded by petitioner the executing court is directed to dispose of E.A. No.911 of 2010 as expeditiously as possible. Original Petition is disposed of with the above direction. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv