IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 31157 of 2008(H)
1. CHEMBAN HAMZA, S/O.MUHAMMED,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KODITHODI UNNI MUHAMMED, S/O.LATE
... Respondent
2. TALUK SURVEYOR, ERANAD TALUK,
3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
4. PAZHERI KUNHAPPU, S/O.KUNHEEDU HAJI,
5. PAZHERI RUKKIYA, D/O.MUHAMMED HAJI,
6. KUNNUMMAL AHAMMED KUTTY, S/O.KOYA KUTTY,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.K.KUNHABDULLA
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :22/10/2008
O R D E R
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
--------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.31157 of 2008 H
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2008.
JUDGMENT
Petitioner claimed that he is the absolute owner in possession of
ten cents of land in Sy.No.285/7 of Kondotty Village as per Ext.P1, sale deed
No.3703/1994 dated 15.11.1995 executed in his favour by respondents 4 to 6
who are defendants 3, 6 and 8 in O.S.No.6 of 1995 of Munsiff Court, Manjeri, a
suit instituted by the Receiver appointed in O.S.No.108 of 1952 of Sub Court,
Kozhikode. According to the petitioner, immediately after Ext.P1 he constructed
house and is residing there with family. While so, he learned that O.S.No.6 of
1995 is filed against defendants 1 to 8 (who include respondents 4 to 6) praying
for decree for prohibitory injunction and demolition of the structures including in
the ten cents. Though petitioner sought impleadment in O.S.No.6 of 1995, that
request was disallowed which was confirmed by this Court in C.R.P.No.2726 of
1998. Ext.P6 decree was passed by the Munsiff Court, Manjeri on 28.7.1999. In
execution of that decree, first respondent filed E.P.No.446 of 2007 for demolition
of the structures in the schedule property including the ten cents claimed by the
petitioner. Amin came to the property on 14.10.2008. Petitioner states that he
has applied for certified copy of the order in E.P.No.446 of 2007 and the
application was numbered on 14.10.2008. He intents to file claim petition in
E.P.No.446 of 2007 and in the meantime, sought for reliefs including a direction
to the learned Munsiff not to proceed against the property and the residential
WP(C) No.31157/2008
2
building of the petitioner in execution or in the alternative, to direct the learned
Munsiff to consider and pass orders on claim petition which the petitioner
proposes to file in that case.
2. Claim of the petitioner that he is interested in the subject matter
and was to be impleaded in the suit has already been turned down. In the facts
and circumstances of the case, I do not consider it appropriate or necessary to
grant the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner in this proceedings. I make it clear
that it is open to the petitioner to initiate appropriate proceedings if he is
otherwise be entitled to that course.
With the above observation, Writ Petition is dismissed.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH,
JUDGE.
cks