IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2010 / 1ST MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 2067 of 2010(O) ------------------------- {IN E.P 428/2009 IN OS.960/2004 OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERNAKULAM} .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- KUTTIKRISHNAN, S/O.UNTAMAN, RESIDING AT MURIATHU HOUSE, PONNINCHIRA ROAD, EDAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.S.ANANTHAKRISHNAN SRI.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- SADANANDA KAMATH, KOLLAPARAMBIL, DEVANKULANGARA, EDAPPALLY NORTH VILLAGE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.2067 of 2010 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the Principal Munsiff Court, Ernakulam to issue carbon copy of the order dt. 16.1.2010 passed in E.P.No.428 of 2009 in O.S.No.960 of 2004 and to stay the execution of Ext.P1 decree and also operation of the order dt. 16.1.2010 passed in E.P.No.428 of 2009 in O.S.No.960 of 2004 till the carbon copy is supplied to the petitioner with a breathing time to challenge the same; and ii. Such other and further reliefs that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the course to meet the ends of justice. 2. Petitioner is the judgment debtor in E.P.No.428 of 2009 in O.S.No.960 of 2004 on the file W.P.(C).No.2067 of 2010 :: 2 :: of the Principal Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam. The above writ petition has been filed seeking the issue of a writ, direction or order to the Execution Court to issue a copy of the order directing delivery of the property, for the supply of which, an application is stated to have been filed, and to provide a breathing time, staying further proceedings in execution, to challenge the order of delivery after being furnished with a copy of that order. 3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. The respondent/decree holder sought recovery of possession of a ''charthu'' claiming the status as a tenant over that ''charthu''. Whatever defences canvassed by the petitioner/judgment debtor setting forth his right over the ''charthu'' were repelled and a decree was granted in favour of the respondent as prayed for. When the decree is W.P.(C).No.2067 of 2010 :: 3 :: sought to be executed, it is resisted by advancing a case that a permanent brick wall separated the 'charthu' from that of the tenanted premises under the occupation of the petitioner/judgment debtor. Since the decree does not provide for demolition of that brick wall, according to the learned counsel for the judgment debtor, delivery of the 'charthu' in execution of that decree is impracticable, as access to that 'charthu' is only through that wall. 5. After taking note of the submissions made by the counsel, on my request, the counsel has handed over a copy of the judgment rendered in the suit. A perusal of the judgment reveals that the existence of the brick wall and exclusive right over the same had been projected as one among the contentions to resist the claim raised in the suit. The brick wall was constructed immediately prior to the W.P.(C).No.2067 of 2010 :: 4 :: filing of the suit to obstruct the enjoyment of the 'charthu' by the lessee-the plaintiff, was the case set up in the plaint for the relief canvassed and on the basis of the evidence let in the case, the case of the plaintiff was accepted by the court as well. It was noticed, on the report tendered by the commissioner, that only one side of the 'charthu' was plastered i.e. the portion under the occupation of the petitioner/judgment debtor. The fact that construction of that 'charthu' was immediately prior to the filing of the suit was also taken note of to hold that the case of the plaintiff that it had been constructed to prevent him from enjoying the 'charthu' has to be accepted as true. Whatever right claimed by the judgment debtor over the portion of the wall had been considered and was found of no avail to resist the decree sought for by the W.P.(C).No.2067 of 2010 :: 5 :: respondent/plaintiff. That cannot be advanced in execution to prevent the execution of the decree. 6. There is no merit in the writ petition and the request made for issue of a direction for supply of a copy of the order passed by the court to deliver the property. It is solely intended to delay the execution proceedings. Visitorial jurisdiction of this court cannot be invoked for the purpose of causing obstruction to the execution of a validly obtained decree. There is no merit in the writ petition and it is dismissed. Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE SK/- //true copy// P.S. to Judge.