High Court Kerala High Court

Pushpakaran vs Thankamani on 22 January, 2009

Kerala High Court
Pushpakaran vs Thankamani on 22 January, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 18600 of 2005(L)


1. PUSHPAKARAN, AGED 56 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THANKAMANI,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI (SR.)

The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID

 Dated :22/01/2009

 O R D E R
                            HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.
                       -------------------------------------------
                           W.P.(C) No.18600 of 2005
                      ------------------------------------------
                Dated, this the 22nd day of January, 2009

                             JUDGMENT

The judgment debtor in E.P.No.360 of 1999 in

O.S.No.512 of 1996 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Chavakkad is

the writ petitioner. Exts.P1 and P2 are the judgment and decree

produced in the writ petition. The contention raised in this writ

petition is that the decree holder failed to deposit the amount within

the time prescribed by the court in the decree. It is seen that

subsequently the decree holder remitted the amount with a petition

seeking permission to extend the period of time. The execution

court granted time and allowed the petition. Subsequently,

E.P.No.360 of 1999 was heard on merits and the court held that the

decree holder is entitled to get the delivery as prayed for. Therefore,

delivery was ordered.

2. The contentions raised in this writ petition are not

bona fide and the idea is to protract the proceedings to the extent

possible. The decree holder is entitled to enjoy the decree at the

earliest possible time. The judgment debtor cannot take shelter

under the procedures for the purpose of delaying the delivery. I

W.P.(C) NO.18600 of 2005
2

find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the court below.

The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

HARUN-UL-RASHID,
(JUDGE)
vns