IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2010 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 33922 of 2007(L) --------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN EP.160/92 IN OS.140/1975 of I ADDL.SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE . .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- PREMANANDAN,S/O.HARIDASAN, MADAMPARAMBATH HOUSE, VENGERI AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. MR.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- M.PRABHAKARAN,MARIYATHU HOUSE, AMIN,CHERUPPA, P.O. MAVOOR, KOZHIKODE. ADV. SMT.PRABHA R.MENON MR.M.KRISHNAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/02/2010 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.33922/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 18.12.06. P2:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WPC. 20004 OF 2007 DTD. 29.6.07. P3:- COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE , KOZHIKODE IN EA. NO.1327OF 2006 IN EP. 160/92 IN OS. 140/75 DTD. 23.8.07. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J ------------------------------------- W.P.C No.33922 OF 2007 -------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of February 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner is a third party in the execution proceedings arising from a decree passed in O.S No.140 of 1975 on the file of the Sub Court, Kozhikode. Respondent is the Amin deputed by the court for delivery of the property with police aid, in execution of the decree. Petitioner, a third party, claimed that he had independent occupation over a portion of the decree schedule property with a bunk shop at that site. Though he was not bound by the decree, the respondent Amin demolished his bunk shop and filed a false report before the court, was his case. Imputing grave allegations against the respondent Amin, the petitioner applied for his prosecution in accordance with law. Two other petitions were also filed by the petitioner, the first one, an application under Order 21 Rule 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure to restore his possession and the other to prosecute the decree holder and to claim damages. The application moved by the petitioner against the Amin(respondent) after enquiry was dismissed by the learned Munsiff vide Ext.P3 order. The other two applications of the petitioner are still pending consideration before the court below. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P3 order W.P.C No.33922 OF 2007 Page numbers is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. I heard the counsel on both sides. The limited prayer canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner was for setting aside the order and remitting the petition moved by him for taking action against the respondent for consideration with the other two pending petitions which are still awaiting consideration. Prejudice is likely to be caused to the petitioner in considering the other applications on its merits in view of Ext.P3 adverse order passed against him, is the submission of the counsel. In the alternative, it is submitted, if for any reason the impugned order is found not liable to be interfered with in exercise of the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court the court below may be directed to dispose the other two applications untrammelled by any of the observations made in the order. The learned counsel for the respondent resisted the relief canvassed for setting aside the order and remitting it for fresh consideration with the other two petitions contending that the Amin had only discharged his duties lawfully in accordance with the orders passed by the court. Remission of the case setting aside the order in such circumstances would cause prejudice to the respondent Amin, W.P.C No.33922 OF 2007 Page numbers that too for having preformed his duties as a public servant, submits the counsel. 3. Taking note of the submissions made by the counsel on both sides, I have perused Ext.P3 order impugned in the writ petition. After going through the order, I find, the learned Munsiff has meticulously considered the imputations made against the Amin by the petitioner and had reached the conclusion that there is no basis for the imputations and allegations raised against him. I do not find any impropriety or illegality in Ext.P3 order warranting interference by exercise of the extra ordinary jurisdiction vested with this court. However, I make it clear that none of the findings made in the order shall have any effect or bearing in disposing of the other two applications filed by the petitioner which await enquiry and consideration. Those two applications shall be disposed of untrammelled by any of the observations made in Ext.P3 order in accordance with law. Subject to the observations made above, the writ petition is closed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN //TRUE COPY// JUDGE vdv P.A TO JUDGE