IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 11TH OCTOBER 2011 / 19TH ASWINA 1933 CRP.No. 443 of 2011 ----------------------------- [E.A. NO.354/2011 IN E.P.148/2010 IN O.S. 977/2011 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF'S COURT-II,KOZHIKODE] .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS: -------------------------------------------------------- 1. STANLEY MOSES, S/O. THOTTAYIL SAMUEL, CHEMBAKASSERY MEETHAL HOUSE, 23/3439, NELLIKODE, KOZHIKODE TALUK, CALICUT -16. 2. JOY DAVID, CHEMBAKASSERY MEETHAL HOUSE, 23/3439, NELLIKODE, KOZHIKODE TALUK, CALICUT-16. 3. REJINA CHRISTABLE, D/O. THOTTAYIL SAMUEL, CHEMBAKASSERY MEETHAL HOUSE, 23/3439, NELLIKODE, KOZHIKODE TALUK, CALICUT-16. 4. NEENA GLADIS, D/O. THOTTAYIL SAMUEL, CHEMBAKASSERY MEETHAL HOUSE, 23/3439, NELLIKOE, KOZHIKODE TALUK, CALICUT -16. BY ADVS. SRI.K.RAVEENDRAN, SRI.P.K.ABDUL RAHIMAN. RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------- THE PASTORATE COMMITTEE, C.S.I. CHURCH, PUTHIYARA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, NELLICODE, CALICUT-16. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Prv. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== C.R.P. No.443 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 11th day of October, 2011 O R D E R This Civil Revision is in challenge of order dated 07.09.2011 in E.A. No.354 of 2011 on E.P. No.148 of 2010 in O.S. No.977 of 2011 of the court of learned Principal Munsiff-II, Kozhikode. Respondent obtained a decree for eviction of petitioner from the building referred to in the decree schedule which according to the petitioner is situated in Government Puramboke. According to petitioner, his father had applied for assignment of the land where the building is situate which is considering the grant of Patta in favour of petitioner. In the meantime the executing court has passed order on E.A. No.354 of 2011 rejecting contention of petitioner regarding identification of property to be delivered and on the same day passed order in the execution petition directing the Amin to deliver property to the respondent. Learned counsel submits that without identification of the property executing court was not correct in passing the impugned orders. 2. It is not disputed that respondent is armed with a decree for eviction of petitioner from the suit property. That decree was confirmed by this Court and the Supreme Court refused C.R.P. No.443 of 2011 -: 2 :- to admit the Special Leave Petition. Learned counsel in fairness concedes that Supreme Court had granted time to the petitioner vacate the suit property. In such a situation question of dispute regarding identity of property does not arise. Petitioner had no case that suit is not with respect to the building which he occupies. On the trial side certain other contentions were raised, which were found against and decree was granted in favour of the respondent. 3. Having obtained benefit of time granted by the Supreme Court to vacate the decree schedule property, it is not open to the petitioner to contend that identity of the property is not proved and hence delivery should not have been ordered. I find no reason to interfere with the impugned orders. Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. All pending Interlocutory Applications will stand dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv