IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2010 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 6877 of 2010(O) -------------------------------------- EP.192/06 IN OS.37/1979 of I ADDL.SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- P.C. KUNHETTAN RAJA, S/O.NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI, AGED 84 YEARS, SREENILAYAM PALACE, TALI, KASABA AMSOM,DESOM, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SMT.PRABHA R.MENON MR.M.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- P.K. KRISHNANUNNI RAJA, MANAGER, ZAMORIN'S HIGH SCHOOL, TALI, KASABA AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------------------- WP(C) No.6877 of 2010-O ------------------------------------- Dated 3rd March 2010 Judgment In this Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs : “i. Set aside Ext.P6 order of the learned Sub Judge, Kozhikode in the B Diary of the case. ii. direct the Subordinate Judge 1A, Kozhikode to keep in abeyance the proceedings in EP No.192/06 in OS No.37/79 on his file till the review petition CC 6805/10 in SLP (Civil) No.4944/10 is taken up for disposal by the Hon. Supreme Court.” 2. The petitioner was the first defendant in OS No.37/79 on the file of the 1st Additional Sub Judge, Kozhikode. His contention in the suit was that the suit property was not identifiable. According to him, it is WPC 6877/10 2 comprised in a compact plot of 12.5 cents with a building therein. Overruling the objections of the petitioner, the suit was decreed and it was confirmed in appeal. Subsequently, execution proceedings were taken out and when the Amin who was deputed to effect delivery of the property, went to the property, he was unable to identify it and therefore, the warrant was returned. It is stated that the petitioner moved EA No.128/08, pointing out that the decree holder had a duty to identify the plaint schedule property and since the Amin could not identify the property, a Commission may be deputed to identify the property. But, the said EA was dismissed by the Trial Court and it ordered delivery of the property. A copy of the said order is Ext.P1. Ext.P1 order was challenged by the petitioner before this Court by filing WP(C) No.2061/10. This Court by Ext.P2 Judgment, dismissed the said Writ Petition. Against the Judgment of this Court, the petitioner approached the Apex Court. But the Apex Court also dismissed the SLP filed by the petitioner. The petitioner now submits that an RP has WPC 6877/10 3 been moved and it is coming up for consideration before the Apex Court. Therefore, he prays that the delivery of the property may be kept in abeyance till then. 3. There is no merit in the above contention raised by the petitioner. The suit was instituted three decades back and ultimately, a decree was passed and it has been put in execution. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the order in EA was also dismissed. This Court also dismissed the Writ Petition filed challenging the first appellate judgment. The SLP filed against the judgment of this Court was also dismissed. It is thereafter that the delivery of the property is ordered on 05.03.2010. There is no justification for this Court now to interfere with the delivery. This Writ Petition is devoid of any merit and it is accordingly dismissed. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta WPC 6877/10 4 WPC 6877/10 5