IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2011 / 29TH POUSHA 1932 OP(C).No. 250 of 2011(O) OS.507/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, NEDUMANGAD PETITIONERS 1. HAMITHA BEEVI, RASHEEDYA BUILDING, POOVACHAL, PERUMKULAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. HASEENA, D/O. HAMITHA BEEVI, RASHEEDYA BUILDING, POOVACHAL, PERUMKULAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. JASEELA, D/O. HAMITHA BEEVI, RASHEEDYA BUILDING, POOVACHAL, PERUMKULAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MUHAMMED SRI.S.VIJI RESPONDENTS: 1. SAINUM BEEVI, SHAMNA MANZIL, MADATHIKONAM, VALIYELA, KULATHOOPUZHA, KULATHOOPUZHA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 310. 2. SHAMNA SAINA, D/O. SAINUM BEEVI, SHAMNA MANZIL, MADATHIKONAM, VALIYELA, KULATHOOPUZHA, KULATHOOPUZHA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 310. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ O.P.(C). NO. 250 OF 2011 O ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT The respondents filed O.S.No.507 of 2003, on the file of the Court of the Munsiff of Nedumangad, for partition. A preliminary decree was passed and in terms of the preliminary decree, final decree was also passed. The respondents filed Execution Petition. Delivery of the property allotted to them was ordered by the executing court. 2. The reliefs prayed for in the Original Petition are the following: “(i) Issue an appropriate order or direction to call for the records relating to Exhibit P3 and to stay E.P.No.108/2010 in O.S.NO.507/2003 on the file of the Principal Munsiff's Court, Nedumangadu; (ii) Pass such other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case; and (iii) Award the cost of the Original Petition to the Petitioners from the 1st respondent.” O.P.(C) NO.250 OF 2011 O :: 2 :: 3. Ext.P3 which is sought to be stayed is the Execution Petition. Ext.P4 notice of delivery was issued on 3.1.2011. The contention of the petitioners is that though the extent of the plaint schedule item is shown as ten Ares, the Commissioner, on actual measurement, found that the extent of the property is less. The grievance of the petitioners is that though the Commissioner specifically reported that the extent is less, in the final decree, the extent as shown in the plaint was shown and that property is sought to be delivered now. 4. The remedy of the petitioners is not to file an Original Petition. If there is a mistake in the final decree, they have got remedies. If excess delivery was taken by the decree holders, then also the petitioners have effective alternative remedies. An Original Petition cannot be filed at this stage challenging the execution proceedings. The Original Petition is bereft of bona fides. It is accordingly dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/