IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP(C).No. 523 of 2010(O)
1. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI,
... Petitioner
2. DR.UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR,
Vs
1. SIVASANKARA PILLAI, S/O.AYYAPPAN PILLAI
... Respondent
2. SUNIL KUMAR, S/O.SIVASANKARA PILLAI
For Petitioner :SRI.V.M.KURIAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :02/11/2010
O R D E R
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
====================================
O.P(C) No.523 of 2010
====================================
Dated this the 02nd day of November, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Defendants in O.S. No.229 of 1998 and judgment debtors in
E.P. No.137 of 2008 of the court of learned Munsiff, Nedumangad
are the petitioners before me seeking a direction to the learned
Munsiff to dispose of Exts.P5 and P6, applications within a time
limit to be prescribed by this Court and in the meantime keep in
abeyance further proceedings in E.P. No.137 of 2008.
Predecessor-in-interest of respondent obtained a decree for
declaration of right, possession, etc., against petitioners almost
eight years back. After the decree, original plaintiff died and his
legal representative filed E.P. No.137 of 2008. On that petition
proceedings are going on and learned counsel submits that
Surveyor has been appointed to measure the property. Petitioners
have filed Exts.P5 and P6, applications before learned Munsiff (on
the trial side) to set aside the ex parte decree and condone the
delay of 3335 days, according to learned counsel with appropriate
explanation for the delay. On those applications respondent has
O.P(C) No.523 of 2010
-: 2 :-
entered appearance and same are posted this day for evidence.
Learned counsel states that there is every possibility of Exts.P5
and P6, applications being allowed and in the circumstances
proceedings in E.P. No.137 of 2008 may be kept in abeyance.
2. Going by Ext.P3, judgment title of original plaintiff
over the property has been declared and he was allowed to
recover the suit property from the petitioners through court.
Original plaintiff was also permitted to put up boundary wall along
AB line in Ext.C1(a), plan.
3. It is revealed from the submission of learned counsel
that Ext.P5 and P6, applications are being taken up for evidence.
Hence it is only appropriate that execution proceeding to the
extent it relates to delivery of possession and putting up of
boundary wall is to be kept in abeyance for some time so that in
the meantime learned Munsiff could dispose of Exts.P5 and P6,
applications.
Resultantly, this Original Petition is disposed of in the
following lines:
(i) Learned Munsiff, Nedumangad is directed
to dispose of Exts.P5 and P6, applications as
expeditiously as possible.
O.P(C) No.523 of 2010
-: 3 :-
(ii) It is directed that proceeding in E.P.
No.137 of 2008 to the extent it relates to delivery of
possession and putting up of boundary wall shall
stand in abeyance for a period of three weeks from
this day.
(iii) Petitioner can request learned Munsiff to
dispose of Exts.P5 and P6, applications within the said
period of three months.
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.
vsv