IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 15TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No.3667 of 2009 (J) -------------------------------- OS.1861/2000 of M.C.,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: --------------- ANNAMKUTTY @ ANNA, W/O.OUSEPH,AGED 78 YEARS, SRAMBIKKAPARAMBIL, SOUTH JANATHA ROAD, PALARIVATTOM DESOM, POONITHURA VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.DILIP MOHAN RESPONDENT: ---------------- K.T.JOSEPH, S/O.THOMAS, KAPPATTIL HOUSE, SOUTH JANATHA ROAD, PALARIVATTOM DESOM, KANAYANNUR TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------ W. P. C. No.3667 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner who is the judgment debtor in E.P.406/08 in O.S.1861/2000 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam has approached this Court with this Writ Petition assailing the order passed by the execution court on 31/01/09 in the E.P. ordering delivery. 2. It is submitted that delivery is to be effected today as per the order, but that copy of the order applied for has not been issued till now on Ext.P6 copy application filed on 02/02/09. As per Ext.P6 copy application what has been applied for is certified copy of the order passed by the court on the E.P. on 31/01/09. Had carbon copy been applied for, the petitioner would have been supplied with copy of order at least on 02/02/09 if not on W. P. C. No.3667 of 2009 -2- 31/01/09. Today, we are on 04/02/09 and if delivery was being ordered to be effected today, delivery must have been effected by this time as it is 2.30 p.m now. 3. Further, on the arguments advanced before me, I am convinced that the contentions that are being advanced by the petitioner/ judgment debtor on the execution side are the very same contentions that they advanced on the trial side which did not find favour with the trial court and in appeal also the petitioner could not succeed. Without pursuing the matter further, when the decree passed by the court below which was confirmed in appeal is put in execution the grievance that a portion of the house constructed will be demolished and removed is not a grievance at all in law as the decree directs the judgment debtors 1 to 4 to demolish the illegal construction made encroaching upon the W. P. C. No.3667 of 2009 -3- scheduled property allowing the plaintiff/ decree holder to recover the said trespassed portion of 0.221 cents shown as plot No.B in Ext.C2(a) sketch. It is only on failure of the defendants to demolish and remove the same that the respondent/decree holder is allowed to have execution of the decree through court through due process of law. It would be inappropriate for this Court to interfere at this stage in this Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and to obstruct execution of the decree. 4. This Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed. K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE kns/-