IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP(C).No. 924 of 2010(O)
1. P.K.SASI, AGED 48 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. JAYAN, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.SIVASANKARAN,
... Respondent
2. CHIEF MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA,
For Petitioner :SRI.RAJIT
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :30/11/2010
O R D E R
THOMAS P JOSEPH, J.
----------------------------------------
O.P(C).No.924 of 2010
---------------------------------------
Dated this 30th day of November, 2010
JUDGMENT
Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with in view of the
order I propose to pass. Respondent No.2 appears through counsel.
Heard counsel for petitioner and respondent No.2.
2. Petitioner is plaintiff in O.S.No.304 of 2006 of the court
of learned Sub Judge, Thrissur. He filed that suit for a declaration
that document No.2892 of 2004 executed by him in favour of
respondent No.1 was merely a security and that respondent No.2
has not acquired any title over the suit property by way of
mortgage created by respondent No.1. Petitioner has filed Exts.P2
and P7, I.A.Nos.1965 and 1984 of 2010 for an order of injunction
against respondent No.2 taking possession of the property and to
direct respondent No.2 to produce records regarding the loan
transaction. The latter application is filed since petitioner has a
contention that liability of respondent No.1 has already been
discharged. Exts.P2 and P7, applications are pending consideration
before the learned Sub Judge. In the meantime, respondent No.2
obtained an order dated November 24, 2010 from the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur to take possession of the property.
O.P(C).No.924 of 2010
: 2 :
Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has issued Ext.P9, order to that
effect and permitted demolition of front portion of the compound
wall and to correct the pathway for the property. Learned counsel
seeks an early disposal of Exts.P2 and P7, applications and in the
meantime to keep Ext.P9, order in abeyance. It is submitted by
learned counsel that if compound wall is demolished petitioner will
be put to much loss and injury. Learned counsel for respondent
No.2 submits that respondent No.2 is entitled to take possession of
the property pursuant to the order in his favour and to take
possession of the property the Village Officer has to measure the
property for which purpose access to the property is possible only
if a portion of the compound wall is demolished.
3. In the light of that submission of learned counsel for
respondent No.1, learned counsel for petitioner undertakes that
petitioner will provide access through his property for the Village
Officer and other officials to enter the suit property for
enforcement of the order dated November 24, 2010 passed by the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, but prayed that demolition of the
compound wall may be prevented. Having regard to the
circumstances stated I am inclined to grant some relief to the
petitioner.
O.P(C).No.924 of 2010
: 3 :
Resultantly this petition is disposed of in the following lines:
(i) Learned Sub Judge is directed to dispose
of Exts.P2 and P7, applications as early as possible.
(ii) The direction in Ext.P9, order dated
November 24, 2010 of the court of learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur on Crl.M.P.No.2261 of
2010 to the extent it related to demolishment of
front portion of the compound wall of the suit
property will stand in abeyance till the learned Sub
Judge disposed of Ext.P2, application on condition
that petitioner would provide access to the Village
Officer and other officials including respondent No.2
to the suit property through his property for
measurement and to take possession of the suit
property as directed in the order of learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate.
The above direction is made without prejudice to the
contentions raised by the parties in the Civil Court.
(THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE)
Sbna/-