IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2011 / 22ND ASHADHA 1933 OP(C).No. 2206 of 2011(O) ------------------------- OS.638/2008 of SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER :- ---------------------- VIJI P.ISSAC, PONNAL HOUSE, OORAMANA P.O., MEMMURY VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY SRI.G.HARIKRISHNAN (TRIPUNITHURA) RESPONDENT(S) :- -------------------------- 1. VIJAYAKUMARI, KALAVATHU VEETTIL, PADIVATTOM, EDAPPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682 025. 2. VASANTHAKUMARI, VAISHNAVAM (CHATHOTH), PADIVATTOM, EDAPPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682 025. 3. MARTIN, NELLIPARAMBIL, PALARIVATTOM P.O., EDAPPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, PIN-682 025. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: jvt OP(C).No.2206 OF 2011 APPENDIX Petitioner's Exhibits :- Ext.P1 :- Copy of the agreement for sale dated 28/9/2007. Ext.P2 :- Copy of the award dated 30/3/2009. Ext.P3 :- Copy of the acknowledged loan application submitted by the petitioner before the Manager, Syndicate Bank, Muvattupuzha. Ext.P4 :- Copy of the letter issued by the Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank, Muvattupuzha dated 6/4/2009. Ext.P5 :- Copy of the notice dated 5/5/2009 issued by Advocate S.Sudheesh Kumar. Ext.P6 :- Copy of the reply dated 15/5/2009, issued by the petitioner to Advocate S.Sudheesh Kumar. Ext.P7 :- Copy of the Acknowledgment Card signed by Advocate Sudheesh Kumar. Ext.P8 :- Copy of the lawyer notice dated 22/5/2009 issued by Advocate Sudheesh Kumar. Ext.P9 :- Copy of the draft sale deed prepared by the petitioner. Ext.P10 :- Copy of the E.A.No.274/2011 in EP.No.262/2009 in O.S.No.638/2008. Ext.P11 :- Copy of the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 and 2 in E.A.No.274/2011. Ext.P12 :- Copy of the order dated 2/4/2011 passed by the Principal Sub Court, Ernakulam in E.A.No.274/2011 in EP.No.262/2009 in O.S.No.638/2008. Respondent's Exhibits :- NIL. //True Copy// P.A. to Judge THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ O.P.(C). No.2206 of 2011 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 13th day of July 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the first defendant in O.S.No.638 of 2008 and the Decree Holder in E.P.No.262 of 2009 of the court of learned Principal Sub Judge, Ernakulam. That was an inter pleader suit filed by respondents 1 and 2, against petitioner and the 3rd respondent for payment of advance money they received, less compensation they claimed pursuant to an agreement for sale of 18.750 cents of land belonging to respondents 1 and 2. According to them, the agreement for sale could not be gone through due to the inter-se dispute between petitioner and the 3rd respondent. The dispute was referred to the Adalath where Ext.P2, award was passed. As per that award the time for execution of sale date was extended by two months. The award granted relief to respondents 1 and 2 in case of a default in that. Petitioner O.P.(C). No.2206 of 2011 -: 2 :- filed E.P.No.262 of 2009 to execute the award to the extent it favoured him. He claimed that for payment of the balance sale consideration, he wanted to raise a bank loan and for that purpose the original documents of the property were required. Respondents 1 and 2 were bound to make available those documents which were in their custody in terms of the compromise. Petitioner alleged in E.P.No.262 of 2009 that respondents 1 and 2 failed to make available those original documents. Respondents 1 and 2 filed E.P.No.469 of 2009 against petitioner. In the mean time, petitioner filed Ext.P10 application in E.P.No.262 of 2009 to direct respondents 1 and 2 to produce in the executing court the original documents of the property which they admitted, they are in custody. Parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions. Learned Sub Judge vide Ext.P12, order dismissed Ext.P10, application holding that Ext.P2, award does not stipulate that respondents 1 and 2 are to make available the original documents to the O.P.(C). No.2206 of 2011 -: 3 :- petitioner as prayed for in Ext.P10 application. Ext.P12, order is under challenge. 2. Learned counsel submitted that the dismissal of Ext.P10 application is not correct and at any rate, learned Sub Judge was not correct in going to the merit of the dispute which is likely to have a bearing on the disposal of the execution petitions. According to the learned counsel, learned Sub Judge has pre-judged the issue while deciding Ext.P10, application. 3. Having heard learned counsel and gone through Exts.P2, P10 and P12, I do not find reason to interfere with the ultimate direction in Ext.P12, order that Ext.P10 application is dismissed. 4. So far as grievance of petitioner regarding certain observations made by the learned Sub Judge in paragraph 11 of Ext.P12, order is concerned, it is suffice to say that those findings or observations will stand confined to the disposal of Ext.P10, application and will have no bearing on O.P.(C). No.2206 of 2011 -: 4 :- the decision to be taken in the respective execution petitions. Learned Principal Sub Judge is directed to dispose of the execution petitions on the evidence on record and as per the law untrammelled by any finding/observation contained in Ext.P12, order which shall be confined to the disposal of Ext.P10 application. This original petition is closed with the above direction. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. Jvt