IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 5267 of 2009(O)
1. A.M. NOUSHAD,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. M. JAMEL,
... Respondent
2. M. BADARUDDIN,
3. RADHAKRISHNAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.RAJESH KANNAN
For Respondent :SRI.K.B.PRADEEP
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :02/03/2009
O R D E R
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ.
------------------------
W.P.(C)No. 5267 of 2009
------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2009
JUDGMENT
Pius C.Kuriakose, J.
The learned Munsiff has forwarded a report and we are
convinced on reading the report that the learned Munsiff is not
to be blamed for the delay which has been caused in the matter
so far.
2. We dispose of the writ petition directing the learned
Munsiff to remind himself that it is the duty of the execution
court to make every endeavour to see that the decree holder
secures the fruits of the decree/order. We are told that the
learned Munsiff expressed diffidence in proceeding further in the
matter due to pendency of the writ petition. The learned Munsiff
will ensure that the execution petition is finally disposed of at the
earliest and at any rate within three weeks of receiving a copy of
this judgment.
Sri.K.B.Pradeep, learned counsel for the respondents
submits that the execution court cannot order delivery in the
absence of a valid plan and building permit issued by the local
WPC.No.5267/2009 2
authority. Sri K.Rajesh Kannan, learned counsel for the
respondents submits that eviction has been ordered on the
ground under Section 11(4) (1) also. If the execution court
notices that an order of eviction under Section 11 (4) (1) has
been finally passed, that court does not have to worry about the
availability of current plan and licence.
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE
dpk