IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 28616 of 2008(F)
1. THRESIAKUTTY, W/O.OUSEPH,
... Petitioner
2. JOHNY, S/O.OUSEPH, PALATHOTTUNGAL HOUSE,
3. SOPHY, W/O.DAVID, PARAMBITHARA ROAD,
4. JOY, S/O.OUSEPH, PALATHOTTUNGAL HOUSE,
5. JOLLY, D/O.OUSEPH, PALATHOTTUNGAL HOUSE,
6. BAIJU, S/O.OUSEPH, PALATHOTTUNGAL HOUSE,
Vs
1. GEORGE, S/O.MARY, KOTTAKKAL HOUSE,
... Respondent
2. VINU, D/O.MARY, KOTTAKKAL HOUSE,
3. ANNIES, D/O.THRESSIA, KOTTAKKAL HOUSE,
4. LISSY, D/O.THRESSIA, KOTTAKKAL HOUSE,
5. MOLLY, D/O.THRESSIA, KOTTAKKAL HOUSE,
6. THOMAS, S/O.THRESSIA, KOTTAKKAL HOUSE,
7. SUNNY, S/O.LATE MARY PAPPACHAN,
8. SOPHY, D/O.LATE MARY, W/O.VARGHESE,
9. RUBY, D/O.LATE MARY, W/O.ALBY,
10. JOLLY, S/O.MARY PAPPACHAN,
11. JIJI, D/O.PAPPACHAN,
12. JOJI, D/O.MARY, W/O.MATHEW,
13. V.J.ANTONY, VALLATTUKUDY HOUSE,
14. RANI, D/O.ANTONY, VALLATTUKUDY HOUSE,
15. JOSE, S/O.ANTONY, VALLATTUKUDY HOUSE,
16. ANTONY, S/O.ANTONY, VALLATTUKUDY HOUSE,
17. P.V.VARGHESE (FOREST GUARD),
18. ANNIE, W/O.DEVASSY KURIACHAN,
19. ROSSY, W/O.PARAPPILLY JOSEPH, KARITHALA
20. ELIYAMMA, W/O.EARNEST, KOONAMTHAI HOUSE,
21. G.V.PAULSON, ABT, PARCEL SERVICE,
22. K.T.MARTIN, G.I.B.S.C, TRAINING COMPANY,
23. E.C.POULOSE, D.H.C. PARCEL SERVICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :25/09/2008
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(c).No.28616 of 2008
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 25th day of September, 2008
JUDGMENT
Petitioners who are the defendants in O.S.No.66 of 1988 on
the file of the Addl.Sub Court, North Paravur seek to quash
Exts.P5,P7 and P8 proceedings . Ext.P7 is the final judgment
and Ext.P8 is the final decree passed in the suit on 31.08.06
accepting Exts.P2 and P5. Admittedly the petitioners have not
challenged the final decree in appropriate proceedings by way of
an appeal. Hence, the final decree which has accepted Exts.P2
and P5 cannot be collaterally assailed in a writ petition under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The allotment under
final decree has to be given effect to in the execution
proceedings. The petitioners have no right to drag on the
delivery proceedings and further prolong the agony of the
plaintiff. However, the petitioners are given one month time to
deliver vacant possession of the properties.
Dated this the 25th day of September, 2008.
V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE
sj