IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 20TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 29TH BHADRA 1933 CRP.No. 91 of 2011() -------------------- EA 9/2008 IN EP NO.12/2007 IN OS.18/2004 of MUNSIFF COURT,VARKALA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): 2ND PETITIONER/2ND JUDGEMENT DEBTOR ---------------------------------------------------- ABDUL HALIM, S/O.SHIHABUDEEN, A.H.MANZIL, CHATHANPARA, MANAMBOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR SRI.RAJU SEBASTIAN VADAKKEKKARA RESPONDENT(S): COUNTER PETITIONERS/DECREE HOLDERS AND 1ST JUDGMENT DEBTOR: --------------------------------- 1. RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O.BAHULEYAN, MATHANADU HOUSE, KALLAMBALAM DESOM, KUDAVOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. GURUDAS, S/O.BAHULEYAN, MATHANADU HOUSE, KALLAMBALAM DESOM, KUDAVOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 3. BASHEER, S/O.SAHABUDEEN, KUTHIRATHADAM PUTHEN VEEDU, NAVAIKULAM DESOM, NAVAIKULAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.J.JAYAKUMAR FOR R2 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- C.R.P. No.91 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of September, 2011. ORDER Petitioner is the 2nd judgment debtor in E.P.No.12 of 2007 in O.S.No.18 of 2004 of the court of learned Munsiff, Varkala. 1st respondent obtained a decree for eviction against petitioner and 2nd respondent. Petitioner challenged that decree in A.S.No.91 of 2006 in the court of learned Sub Judge, Attingal and vide order on I.A.No.1472 of 2006 obtained an order of stay on condition that within the prescribed time, petitioner shall deposit the entire rent arrears in the executing court. According to the 1st respondent, petitioner did not comply with the said order, there was no stay therefore in force and the executing court delivered over the property to the 1st respondent. Petitioner filed E.A.No. 9 of 2008 for re-delivery of the property complaining that on 16.11.2007, 1st respondent-landlord forcibly evicted him. That application was dismissed by the executing court as per the impugned order dated December 14, 2010 which is under challenge. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner asserted that it was by way of force that petitioner was dispossessed from the suit property. It is also contended that the hotel building in the said property has been demolished by the 1st respondent which has put petitioner to great loss. CRP No.91/2011 2 3. Learned counsel for 1st respondent has contended that petitioner did not appear in the executing court and hence was set exparte on 15.11.2007. That order was followed by an order for delivery of property passed by the executing court on 16.11.2007 and accordingly the Amien has delivered over the property to the 1st respondent. It is also contended that the Amien has submitted a report to that effect in the executing court. 4. The order under challenge states that though petitioner deposited certain amount in the executing court, that was not in compliance of the conditional order of stay passed on I.A.No.1472 of 2006 in A.S.No.91 of 2006. I find from the impugned order that the learned Munsiff has stated the amount actually due to the 1st respondent by way of rent arrears. But, the amount deposited is only a small portion of it. Thus, there was no compliance of the conditional order of stay granted in I.A.No.1472 of 2006. Executing court has observed that petitioner was set exparte on 15.11.2007 and on 16.11.2007 there was an order for delivery of property and that the Amien has delivered over the property as ordered. Learned counsel for 1st respondent submitted that the Amien has submitted a report in the executing court for effecting delivery. It is not shown that it was by force that 1st respondent has divested petitioner from CRP No.91/2011 3 possession of property. If the appeal is disposed of in favour of petitioner, he has a right to seek a re-delivery as provided under law if he is entitled to that course. There is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Civil revision is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks