Rosily vs Antony Poochathara on 3 September, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 27438 of 2010(O)



1. ROSILY
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. ANTONY POOCHATHARA
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.J.JOSEPH PANIKKASSERY

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH

 Dated :03/09/2010

 O R D E R
                             THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
                           --------------------------------------
                            W.P.(C) No.27438 of 2010
                           --------------------------------------
                   Dated this the 3rd day of September, 2010.

                                     JUDGMENT

Petitioner is the claim petitioner in E.P.No.30 of 2009 in O.S.No.92 of

2007 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Kochi. Respondent obtained an exparte

decree for specific performance of an agreement for sale said to be entered with

the husband of petitioner and pursuant to that decree filed E.P.No.30 of 2009 to

evict petitioner and her husband from the decree schedule property and the

building situated thereon after demolishing it. At that stage petitioner filed Ext.P6,

claim petition (E.A.No.146 of 2010). As per her claim building in the decree

schedule property belongs to her, she having constructed the same with the

funds given to her by her father and herself having obtained permit from the local

authority for construction of the building. Certain documents are produced along

with the claim petition. In the claim petition petitioner prayed that execution

proceedings be stayed until disposal of the claim petition. But the claim petition

now stands posted on 07.09.2010. In the meantime, executing court on

30.08.2010 ordered delivery of the property to the respondent within five days.

Petitioner apprehends that even before Ext.P6 is adjudicated executing court

might effect delivery of property and oust petitioner from the building where she

is residing. Petitioner seeks a stay of execution proceedings until Ext.P6, claim

petition is disposed of. Learned counsel states that disregarding the request for

stay, Ext.P6 has been posted on 07.09.2010.

2. I am not going into the merit of the claim made vide Ext.P6. That is

WP(C) No.27438/2010

2

a matter which the executing court has to consider and pass appropriate orders.

Since claim petition is pending it is only appropriate that it is disposed of before

delivery is effected. Hence learned Sub Judge is directed to dispose of Ext.P6,

application before effecting delivery of the property.

Writ Petition is disposed of in the above lines.

THOMAS P.JOSEPH,
Judge.

cks