IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : HE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 20TH DECEMBER 2011 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 OP(C).No. 4187 of 2011(O) ----- ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN E.P 385/1989 IN OS.193/1974 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER: ---------------- ANTO, S/O.JACOB MAMBILLY, MAMBILLY HOUSE, KORAPPATHU LANE, KURIACHIRA P.O., THRISSUR-680 006. BY ADV. SRI.M.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENT: ---------------- P.D.POULOSE, S/O.DEVASSY, PELLISSERRY HOUSE, PARALAM P.O., THRISSUR-680 575. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: DST OP(C).NO. 4187/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER' EXHIBITS EXT. P1: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11/2/2011 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.1747/2007. EXT. P2: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7/7/2011 TO EA.1345/2006. EXT. P3: COPY THE JUDGMENT DATED 4/8/2011 IN O.P.(C) 2378/2011 HIGH COURT OF KERALA. EXT. P4: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30/9/2011 IN SLP NO.26447/2011. EXT. P5: COPY OF THE APPLICATION E.A. 2014/2011. EXT. P6: COPY FO THE COUNTER TO E.A. 2014/2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE DST THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P(C).No.4187 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 20th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the decree holder in E.P.No.385 of 1989 in O.S.No.193 of 1974 of the Court of learned Munsiff, Thrissur. There were cross suits between petitioner and the respondent, trial court granting relief in both the suits. Petitioner filed E.P.No.385 of 1989 contending that respondent violated the decree in his favour, in O.S.No.193 of 1974. Various proceedings were taken in the execution proceeding and the executing court directed execution including delivery of property (area said to be trespassed). Respondent challenged the said order and ultimately the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by Ext.P1, judgment dated 11.02.2011. Executing court directed the District Survey Superintendent to assist the Amin to identify a portion of the property to be delivered to the petitioner. That order was challenged in this Court which resulted in Ext.P3, judgment. This Court dismissed the challenge made by respondent and in paragraph 8 of Ext.P3, judgment observed that delivery of property pursuant to the order which the executing court may pass in the matter will stand adjourned to a day after O.P(C).No.4187 of 2011 -: 2 :- one month from the date of Ext.P3, judgment. 2. Learned counsel submits that this Court granted time to the respondent not to challenge Ext.P3, judgment but, to seek review of earlier judgment of the Supreme Court as requested by the respondent. It is pointed out by learned counsel that instead of attempting at that, respondent challenged Ext.P3, judgment in the Supreme Court and it resulted in Ext.P4, order whereby the appeal was dismissed. Thereafter, respondent filed Ext.P5, application in the executing court. It is stated that the said application is posted to 11.01.2012. 3. Grievance of petitioner is that several applications are being filed by the respondent without any justifiable reason to somehow prolong delivery of property inspite of the fact that at different stages respondent failed and the orders were confirmed by the Supreme Court. Learned counsel submits that the mere fact that applications are filed, is not a ground to adjourn delivery of property. 4. I am not inclined to think that the reliefs prayed for in this original petition is to be allowed by this Court in this proceeding. Ext.P5, application is pending in the executing court. That court has to dispose of the same as provided under O.P(C).No.4187 of 2011 -: 3 :- law at the earliest. It is open to the petitioner to request the executing court to dispose of Ext.P5, application and pass necessary orders in the matter of delivery of property. At the same time, the executing court should also be alert in the matter that the decree is executed at the earliest. Resultantly, directing learned Munsiff to dispose of Ext.P5, application as early as possible and as provided under law, this original petition is disposed of. Sd/- (THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-