IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2009 / 2ND MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 18600 of 2005(L) ------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN EP 360 1999 IN OS.512/1996 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT,CHAVAKKAD .................... PETITIONER: ------------------ PUSHPAKARAN, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O. PANGU, MOORTHATTIL HOUSE, KIZHOOR DESOM, KUNNAMKULAM VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENT: --------------------- THANKAMANI, W/O. PULIKKOTTIL SCARIACHAN @ CHERU, KANIPPAYYOOR VILLAGE AND DESOM,THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI (SR.) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.18600 OF 2005-L APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.12.1996 IN O.S.NO.512/1996 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, CHAVAKKAD EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE DATED 21.12.1996 IN O.S.NO.512 OF 1996 OF THE MUNSIFF COUT, CHAVAKKAD EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO.4678 OF 1997 IN O.S.NO.512 OF 1996 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, CHAVAKKAD EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 9.9.1998 EXECUTED BY THE MUNSIFF OF CHAVAKKAD TO THE RESPONDENT HEREIN IN RESPECT OF THE PLAINT SCHEDULE PROPERTY IN O.S.NO.512/1996 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, CHAVAKKAD EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE E.P.NO.360 OF 1999 IN O.S.NO.512 OF 1996 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, CHAVAKKAD EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT DATED 8.4.2005 IN E.P.NO.360/1999 IN O.S.NO.512 OF 1996 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, CHAVAKKAD EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.6.2005 IN E.P.NO.360 OF 1999 IN O.S.NO.512 OF 1996. / TRUE COPY / HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.18600 of 2005 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 22nd day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT The judgment debtor in E.P.No.360 of 1999 in O.S.No.512 of 1996 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Chavakkad is the writ petitioner. Exts.P1 and P2 are the judgment and decree produced in the writ petition. The contention raised in this writ petition is that the decree holder failed to deposit the amount within the time prescribed by the court in the decree. It is seen that subsequently the decree holder remitted the amount with a petition seeking permission to extend the period of time. The execution court granted time and allowed the petition. Subsequently, E.P.No.360 of 1999 was heard on merits and the court held that the decree holder is entitled to get the delivery as prayed for. Therefore, delivery was ordered. 2. The contentions raised in this writ petition are not bona fide and the idea is to protract the proceedings to the extent possible. The decree holder is entitled to enjoy the decree at the earliest possible time. The judgment debtor cannot take shelter under the procedures for the purpose of delaying the delivery. I W.P.(C) NO.18600 of 2005 2 find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the court below. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. HARUN-UL-RASHID, (JUDGE) vns