IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2010 / 14TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 34844 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 598/97,EA 328/06 EP 46/06 IN OS.44/1973 of SUB COURT, TIRUR .................... PETITIONER: --------------- SAVITHRI, W/O.RAMAKRISHNAN, HOUSEWIFE, RESIDING AT KEERTHANAM, POST NANGADATH PEEDIKA, TEMPLE GATE, THALASSERI. BY ADV. MR.B.KRISHNAN MR.R.PARTHASARATHY RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. UDAYABHANU, S/O.RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 52 YEARS, UNIKKAL HOUSE, PARIYAPURAM AMSAM, TANUR DESAM, TIRUR TALUK-673 321. 2. PADMINI, W/O.RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 75 YEARS, UNIKKAL HOUSE, PARIYAPURAM AMSAM, TANUR DESAM, TIRUR TALUK-673 321. 3. DAUGHTER YAMUNA, D/O.LATE RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 44 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, UNIKKAL HOUSE, PARIYAPURAM AMSAM, TANUR DESAM, TIRUR TALUK-673 321. 4. CHANDRABHANU, S/O.LATE RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 45 YEARS, UNIKKAL HOUSE, PARIYAPURAM AMSAM, TANUR DESAM, TIRUR TALUK - 673 321. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.34844 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T Writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “To direct the learned Sub Judge, Tirur, the executing court to implement the judgment in exhibit P1 at once directing delivery of plots M1 to M4 in exhibit C5 plan annexed to the final decree.” 2. Petitioner is the decree holder in E.P.No.46 of 2006 in O.S.No.44 of 1973 on the file of the Sub Court, Tirur. Decree executed is one passed in a suit for partition. In view of the dilatory tactics taken by the judgment debtor execution of the decree and allotment of the property earmarked in favour of the decree holder could not be given effect to is the grievance espoused by the petitioner/decree holder for issuing directions to the court below to complete the execution proceedings within the time limit fixed by this Court. Previously this Court vide Ext.P1 judgment had issued a specific direction to the court below to deliver the properties allotted to the petitioner in the final decree after identifying the property as shown in C5 plan. Even after W.P.(C).No.34844 of 2009 - O 2 such directions on false representations made by the judgment debtor and also in view of the mischief committed by the amin deputed expressing his inability to fix the identity of the property for the reason of difference in the name of 'desom' the decree granted could not be executed till date is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is further submitted that the execution petition is against posted for settlement on the basis of the representation made by the judgment debtor and that in effect has caused delay in completing the execution proceedings. According to the counsel for the petitioner unconscionable demands are made by the judgment debtor, in settlement talks, which have the effect of nullifying the decree granted in favour of the decree holder, and he is not at all interested in continuing with the talks of settlement as it is found to be only a ruse for delaying the execution proceedings. 3. A report from the learned Sub Judge was called for to ascertain the reasons for the delay in completing the execution proceedings despite passing of Ext.P1 judgment by this Court. From the report it is seen that the amin deputed had expressed his inability to identify the property for the reason of difference in W.P.(C).No.34844 of 2009 - O 3 the description of 'amsom', 'desom' etc., despite a report having been filed by the Tahsildar in the court. Learned Sub Judge is directed to take serious note of the report of the amin and if it is found that the objections raised in executing the decree as to the difficulty in identifying the property are not bonafide, appropriate steps thereof should be taken to curb such a tendency on the part of court amins deputed for delivering over the property. Whatever that be, there will be a direction to the learned Sub Judge to complete the execution proceedings giving effect to the directions rendered in ext.P1 judgment by this Court for delivering of the plots M1 to M4, C5 and P4 final decree after identifying such properties as shown in C5 plan, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, before closing of the courts for the mid summer vacation. There will be a further direction to the court not to post the proceedings in the case for any settlement in the Adalat hereafter. Of course, if the parties file a compromise petition the court can pass appropriate orders. Court below is also directed to file a compliance report on completion of the execution proceedings as stipulated. W.P.(C).No.34844 of 2009 - O 4 Subject to the observations made above, the writ petition is disposed of. Hand over a copy of the judgment to the counsel for the petitioner and a send a copy to the court concerned forthwith. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-