IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2009 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 30460 of 2008(A) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN EP 132/2008. IN RCOP.6/2005 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.M. ASLAM, AGED 50, S/O. ABDUL MUHAMMED, KARAMPELIL VEEDU, POLAYATHODU, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SIVAJI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- KANAKAMMA JALADHARAN, THETTIKUZHI, THEKKEVILA CHERI, MUNDAKKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 30460 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius.C.Kuriakose, J. As directed by us, learned counsel for the petitioner has made available for our perusal copy of the order dated 30/08/2008 passed by the execution court on the execution petition. It is seen that the said order is a detailed order in which the learned execution court deals with the contentions raised by the parties including the contention of the writ petitioner that the decree is not executable. As rightly noticed in that order, the eviction order is passed on the basis of a compromise petition, the terms of which had been ordered to be recorded. The finding of the execution court in the order dated 30/08/2008 is that in view of violation of condition No.3 in the compromise petition, the writ petitioner has become liable to be evicted even before the expiry of the period mentioned in the order ( the period till 15/11/2011). We do not propose to examine the legal and factual correctness of the order dated 30/08/2008 since the writ petitioner has an effective statutory WPC.No.30460/08 2 remedy under Section 14 of Act 2 of 1965 before the District Court. We dispose of the writ petition relegating the petitioner to that remedy. We are told that on the basis of the order dated 30/08/2008, the writ petitioner has now been dis-possessed. It is made clear that the District Court shall not refuse to entertain the revision petition which may be filed by the writ petitioner on the reason that delivery has taken place. If the writ petition is successful before the District Court, it is always open to him to apply under Section 144CPC or other provisions for re-delivery. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE sv. WPC.No.30460/08 2