High Court Kerala High Court

Syed Alaviya Jiffriya vs Muhammath on 22 August, 2008

Kerala High Court
Syed Alaviya Jiffriya vs Muhammath on 22 August, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 25455 of 2008(E)



1. SYED ALAVIYA JIFFRIYA
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. MUHAMMATH
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.MANJERI SUNDERRAJ

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :22/08/2008

 O R D E R
                 M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
                   ------------------------------------------
                   W.P.(C) NO. 25455 OF 2008
                   ------------------------------------------
             Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2008


                              JUDGMENT

Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.341 of 1997 on the file of

Munsiff Court, Kozhikode. Under Ext.P1 judgment dated

4.7.2002, a compromise decree was passed in terms of the

agreement executed by the parties. Under the agreement a duty

was cast to avoid stagnation of water in the plaint A schedule

property belonging to the petitioner. When the terms of the

agreement was not complied with, E.P.93 of 2003 was filed

before Munsiff Court. Respondents approached this Court by

filing CRP.901 of 2007, which was disposed under Ext.P2 order.

That order was passed at the admission stage without hearing

the petitioner. Petitioner, thereafter, approached this Court by

filing WP(C) 8664 of 2008. That was also disposed without

hearing respondents, under Ext.P3 judgment. This petition is

filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India for a direction to

the executing Court to implement only the second limb of Ext.P1

agreement.

WP(C)25455/08 2

2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner was heard.

3. Learned counsel submitted that Ext.P4 memo was

filed before the Advocate Commissioner who was appointed by

the Court in the execution petition as this Court directed the

Commissioner to seek direction from this Court and the first

limb of the agreement cannot be implemented, a direction is to

be issued. I do not find it proper for this Court to give any such

direction. Petitioner is at liberty to approach the executing

Court for appropriate order. If any such application is filed,

learned Munsiff to hear the parties and pass appropriate order

in accordance with law.

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE

Okb/-