IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 411 of 2010()
1. MANALTHEERAM AYURVEDA HOSPITAL AND
... Petitioner
Vs
1. BINU KRISHNAN, S/O.KRISHNAN NADAR,
... Respondent
2. CHELLAPPAN PILLAI, S/O.MATHEVAN PILLAI,
3. VELAYUDHAN NAIR, S/O.NEELAKANTA PILLAI,
4. KOCHAPPY NADAR, S/O.UMMINI NADAR,
5. AYYAPPAN PILLAI, S/O.KRISHNAPILLAI,
6. AYYAPPAN PILLAI, S/O.KRISHNAPILLAI,
7. SANKARA PILLAI, S/O.MADHEVAN PILLAI,
8. AYYAPPAN PILLAI, S/O.PADMANABHA PILLAI,
9. RAMAN PILLAI, S/O.KRISHNA PILLAI,
10. SADASIVAN PILLAI, S/O.SIVAN PILLAI,
11. SANKARA PILLAI, S/O.VELAYUDHA PILLAI,
12. RADHAMMA PILLAI, D/O.KAMALAMMA PILLAI,
13. VALSALA, D/O.RADHAMMA PILLAI,
14. VENU, S/O.VELAYUDHAN NAIR,
15. MURALI, S/O.VELAYUDHAN NAIR,
16. VANAJAM, D/O.RADHAMMA PILLAI,
17. MURUGAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN NAIR,
18. KESAVAN NADAR, S/O.KOCHAPPY NADAR,
19. KRISHNAN NADAR, S/O.KOCHAPPY NADAR,
20. SIVA SANKARA PILLAI, S/O.RAMAN PILLAI,
21. AYYAPPAN PILLAI, S/O.RAMAN PILLAI,
22. MANIKANTAN NAIR, S/O.SIVASANKARA PILLAI,
23. KARTHI PILLAI, D/O.KALYANI PILLAI,
24. PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, S/O.RAMAN PILLAI,
25. KAMALAMMA PILLAI, D/O.KALYANI PILLAI,
26. OMANAMMA, D/O.KALYANI PILLAI,
27. KALYANI PILLAI, D/O.KALIYAMMA PILLAI,
28. PONNAMMA PILLAI, D/O.JANAKI PILLAI,
For Petitioner :SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :03/08/2010
O R D E R
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
====================================
C.R.P. No.411 of 2010
====================================
Dated this the 03rd day of August, 2010
O R D E R
Petitioner is a non-party to the suit- O.S. No.67 of 1957
of the court of learned Additional Munsiff-II, Neyyattinkara
and E.P.No.80/1979 by which the decree in that case is being
executed. Petitioner claimed to be an assignee of jenm right
of a portion of the property from the petitioner in E.A.No.399
of 2010 and claimed to have acquired mortgage right in the
said property. He filed E.A.No.963 of 2010 requesting the
executing court not to physically evict him from the property
in his possession in execution of the decree. Grievance of
petitioner is that executing court has not considered that
application for the reason that E.A.No.399 of 2010 filed by his
assignor has already been disposed of by that court. Learned
counsel contends that notwithstanding the disposal of
E.A.No.399 of 2010 petitioner is entitled to maintain
E.A.No.963 of 2010. Various points are raised in support of
C.R.P. No.411 of 2010
-: 2 :-
that contention.
2. Even as per the submission of learned counsel,
executing court has not disposed of E.A.963 of 2010. Since
that application has already been filed, the same is required
to be disposed of. The executing court is therefore, directed
to dispose of E.A.963 of 2010 if steps on that application are
complete, as provided under law.
Civil Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly.
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.
vsv