IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2010 / 17TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 11978 of 2010(V) -------------------------- RCP.14/1993 of PRL.MUNSIFF, KASARAGOD .................... PETITIONER: --------------- LEELAVATHI R.RAO, MISSION COMPOUND, KASBA VILLAGE, P.O.KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SOHAN SMT.SREEJA SOHAN.K. RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. CORPORATE MANAGER, B.E.M.HIGH SCHOOL, KASARAGOD AT CALICUT DIOCEMAN OFFICER, BANK ROAD, CALICUT. 2. HEAD MASTER, B.E.M.HIGH SCHOOL, KASARAGOD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.S.SUJIN SMT.RASHMI RAVINDRAN SRI.LAKSHMEESH.S.KAMATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON ON 08/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 WP(C).No. 11978 of 2010 APPENDIX ------------ PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ------------------------------- P1:- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN R.C.R.156/09,DT.17.9.09. P2:- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN S.L.P.35968/09, DT.6.1.10 P3:- TRUE COPY OF THE EXECUTION PETITION FILED AS E.P.159/09 IN R.C.P.14/83, DT.7.8.09 P4:- TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN REVIEW PETITIN NO.10166/2010 NOW PENDING BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT. P5:- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE MUNSIFF COURT IN E.P.159/09 IN R.C.P.14/93, DT.3.4.10 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS -------------------------------- R1(a):- TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN E.P.NO.159/09 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, KASARAGOD ON 11.12.2009 //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,JJ. ............................................. W.P.(C) No. 11978 of 2010 ............................................ Dated this the 8th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T .......................... THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN,J Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. K.V.Sohan says that inspite of the earlier order dated 28.06.2010 the petitioner has not surrendered possession by delivering the vacant possession to the respondents. 2. The petitioner is the 11th respondent in the Rent Control Petition. An order of eviction was issued. It was confirmed by the appellate authority, the revenue authority and ultimately by the Apex Court. Against the dismissal of the SLP filed before the Apex Court the 2 W.P.(C) No. 11978 of 2010 petitioner is stated to have filed a review petition No.10166/10 which is now stated to be pending before the Apex Court. 3. The petitioner instituted this writ petition challenging Exhibit P5 order of the Principal Munsiff Court, proceeding to execute the order of eviction, refusing to grant further time to vacate. The plea projected by the petitioner is that when the Supreme Court is in seizin of a review petition, the execution court should have kept its hands off. Fundamentally, this plea does not lie at all. In the absence of any interdicting order of the Supreme Court, nothing stood in the way of the execution court further proceedings with the execution. On facts, after the dismissal of the S.L.P. by the Apex Court, nothing remained for the petitioner to seek further relief from the executing Court merely on the premise that the revision petition has been filed before the Apex Court. 3 W.P.(C) No. 11978 of 2010 4. The respondents had appeared and placed a counter affidavit. We are satisfied that the institution of this writ petition and the obtaining of the interim order thereon has resulted in mis-carriage of justice. There is no merit in this writ petition. The same is dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/-. If there is no restraint order from the Apex Court, delivery shall be effected by the executing Court at the earliest. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. rkc