IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 6TH JUNE 2011 / 16TH JYAISHTA 1933 OP(C).No. 1204 of 2011(O) ------------------------- OS.29/1955 of II ADDL.DISTRICT COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONERS --------------------- 1. A.T.JOSEPH, SON OF LATE THOBIAS @ LOUIZ, AMBATTU HOUSE, CHARIYANTHURUTH, VARAPUZHA P.O., ERNAKULAM. 2. P.J.URMIS, SON OF JOSEPH, PARAVATTIL HOUSE, CHERAI, PALLIPPURAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.EASWARAN SRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN (IRIMPANAM) SRI.M.A.AUGUSTINE SRI.VARUGHESE CHERIAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. FRANCIS J.MANADAN, SON OF P.P.LONAPPAN, PARAVATTIL HOUSE, CHERAI, VIA.NORTH PARAVOOR. 2. DR.P.J.JOSEPH, SON OF LONAPPAN, DO.DO. 3. SMT.THRESSIAMMA LONAPPAN, D/O.LONAPPAN, DO. DO. 4. THOMAS J.DAVID, SON OF JOSEPH J.DAVID, PALATHU BUNGALOW, ALUVA WEST VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM. 5. SMT.GLORIA JOY, D/O.JULIAN J.DAVID, DO.DO. ADV. SRI.KURIAN ANTONY EDASSERY, RATHEESH.M FOR R4 &5 SRI.BOSE K.THACHIL FOR R1 TO R3 THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: dmb OP(C).No. 1204 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- P1:- COPY OF PURCHASE CERTIFICATE DATED 14.8.09 ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER AND OTHERS P2:- COPY OF ORDER DATED 02.05.1968 IN O.A.NO.3269/1964 P3:- COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 25.6.1971 OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN LRAS NO.145/1970 P4:- COPY OF ORDER DATED 13.10.1972 IN C.R.P.NO.945/1971 P5:- COPY OF SALE DEED DATED 3.6.1975 OF THE SRO NJARAKAL P6:- COPY OF DECREE DATED 1.5.1970 IN O.S.NO.160/1969 P7:- COPY OF SALE DEED DATED 6.4.1962 EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE 2ND PETITIONER P8:- COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF PURCHASE DATED 8.8.1977 ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE 2ND PETITIONER P9:- COPY OF E.A.NO.135/2011 FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER'S P10:- COPY OF E.A.NO.263/2010 FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER AND OTHERS RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- R1(a):- COPY OF THE E.A.NO.53/2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS / 1ST, 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS BEFORE THE 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED 16.2.2011 //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------ O.P(C)No.1204 OF 2011 ------------------------------ Dated this the 6th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT The reliefs prayed for in the Original Petition are the following: “a) Issue appropriate directions or orders compelling the court below to issue copies of the documents as ordered by the District Court, Ernakulam in E.A.No.263 of 2010 in O.S.No.29 of 1955 including the certified copy of the order in the above application before passing any order in the applications for delivery of the properties; b) issue appropriate directions or orders compelling the District Court, Ernakulam to consider Exhibit P9 and pass orders for issuing the documents sought for in Exhibit P9 as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a time to be specified by this Honourable Court; c) issue appropriate directions or orders restraining the District Court, Ernakulam in further considering E.A.No.126 of 2010 and E.A.No.53 of 2011 pending issue of documents to the petitioners as ordered by the court below.” 2. The petitioners are not parties to O.S.No.29 of 1955 on the file of the Court of the District Judge of Ernakulam. It is stated that the first petitioner is a tenant to whom Exts.P1 and P2 purchase certificates were issued. The second petitioner O.P(C)No.1204 OF 2011 2 claims under Ext.P7 sale deed of the year 1962 and in respect of which Ext.P8 purchase certificate was issued by the Land Tribunal. It is stated that O.S.No.29 of 1955 was decreed and the decree was put in execution. E.A.No.126 of 2010 was filed for delivery of the properties. E.A.No.53 of 2011 was filed for police aid in getting delivery. According to the decree holders, some of the items of properties were delivered and there was obstruction in respect of some other items. 3. The first petitioner filed E.A.No.167 of 2010 under Rule 97 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure to decide the right title and interest of the first petitioner in respect of a portion of item 2 of the decree schedule. E.A.No.167 of 2010 is pending. It is stated that the first petitioner filed E.A.No.263 of 2010 before the District Court, for issue of copies of certain documents which the first petitioner intended to make use of in support of his application, namely, E.A.No.167 of 2010. It is stated that the court below allowed E.A.No.263 of 2010, but the documents have not been supplied to the first petitioner. The second petitioner O.P(C)No.1204 OF 2011 3 filed E.A.No.135 of 2011 before the court below to get copies of certain documents. The grievance of the second petitioner is that the court below has not disposed of E.A.No.135 of 2011. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the claim of the first petitioner relates to a portion of item 2 of the decree schedule. The counsel also submitted that item 1 and 19 of the decree schedule were already delivered. 5. Since the court below allowed E.A.No.263 of 2010 for issue of copies of certain documents in favour of the first petitioner, it is necessary to deliver the same to the first petitioner. The prayer made by the first petitioner to that extent is sustainable. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the District Court, Ernakulam to deliver the copies of the documents which were ordered to be delivered to the first petitioner as per the order in E.A.No.263 of 2010. 6. The prayer of the second petitioner that E.A.No.135 of O.P(C)No.1204 OF 2011 4 2011 filed by him requires to be considered by the court below, is also just and reasonable. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the court below to consider and dispose of E.A.No.135 of 2011 expeditiously. 7. As stated earlier, E.A.No.167 of 2010 was filed by the first petitioner to decide the claim put forward by him. He wants to rely on the documents which were ordered to be granted to him as per the order in E.A.No.263 of 2010. Therefore, it is only just and reasonable to direct the court below to defer consideration of E.A.No.167 of 2010 till copies of the aforesaid documents are supplied to the first petitioner. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted the pendency of E.A.No.167 of 2010 or any other claim made by the petitioner should not stand in the way of the right of the respondents/decree holders to get delivery of items which are not claimed by the petitioners. It is made clear that the above directions should not affect the rights of the decree holders to get O.P(C)No.1204 OF 2011 5 delivery of the items over which no claims are pending. The Original Petition is disposed of as above. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms