Kerala High Court
Muhammadali Aged 46 Years vs Mohammed Haji on 10 April, 2013
Author: Thomas P.Joseph
Bench: Thomas P.Joseph
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH
WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2013/20TH CHAITHRA 1935
OP(C).No. 1403 of 2013 (O)
---------------------------
AGAINST THE PROCEEDINGS IN E.P.119/11 IN OS.166/2010 of MUNSIFF COURT,
OTTAPPALAM
PETITIONERS:
-------------------
1. MUHAMMADALI AGED 46 YEARS
S/O.KORANCHIRA MOIDHU, NELAYA AMSOM DESOM
OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
2. SABIRA
W/O.MUHAMMADALI, NELAYA AMSOM DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK
PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR
SRI.RANJIT BABU
RESPONDENT:
---------------------
MOHAMMED HAJI
S/O.CHETTIARTHODI VEETTIL HASSANKUTTY
VALLAPUZHA AMSOM DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK
PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
R BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN
R BY ADV. SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-04-2013,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(C).No. 1403 of 2013 (O)
---------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------------------
EXT. P1- THE TRUE COPY OF THE EXECUTION PETITION NUMBERED AS
E.P.NO.119/2011 IN O.S.NO.166/2010.
EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL NUMBERED AS C.M.A.NO.15/2013
AGAINST THE DISMISSAL OF PETITION TO SET ASIDE EX-PARTE DECREE.
EXT.P3- THE TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO.887/2013 IN CMA NO.15/2013.
EXT.P4- THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL NUMBERED AS CMA NO.16/2013.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL
---------------------------------------
// TRUE COPY //
PA TO JUDGE
dl/
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
=====================
Original Petition (civil) No. 1403 of 2013
==============================
Dated this the 10th day of April, 2013
JUDGMENT
Petitioners are judgment debtors in E.P. No. 119 of 2011 in O.S No. 166 of 2010 of the Munsiff's Court, Ottapalam seeking a direction for stay of proceeding in E.P. No. 119 of 2011 and to direct the Sub Court, Ottapalam to pass orders on Ext.P3, application for stay within the time frame fixed by this court.
2. Respondent has obtained a decree for prohibitory injunction against petitioners blocking flow of water from a chal. Alleging that petitioners violated the decree by constructing platform in that chal, respondent filed E.P. No. 119 of 2011 under Rule 32 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "the Code").
3. In the meantime, petitioners filed applications to set aside the ex parte decree and condone delay. Those applications were dismissed by the learned Sub Judge against which petitioners have preferred CMA No.15 of 2013 in the Sub Court, Ottapalam.
4. Grievance of petitioners is that though application for O.P.(C) No.1403 of 2013 -: 2 :- stay is preferred in CMA No. 15 of 2013 that application is not so far disposed of. In the meantime the executing court has directed execution of the decree.
5. Learned counsel for respondent submits that in violation of the decree, petitioners have constructed platform in the water chal which the Advocate Commissioner has reported.
6. The Advocate Commissioner has reported about construction of a platform in the chal. That, according to the respondent obstructs free flow of water. In the circumstances, request for stay of execution cannot be granted. But CMA No.15 of 2013 and Ext.P3, application for stay therein are to be disposed of by the learned Sub Judge, Ottapalam as early as possible.
Resultantly, this original petition is disposed of directing the learned Sub Judge, Ottapalam to dispose of CMA No. 15 of 2013 and/or Ext.P3, application for stay preferred therein as early as possible after completing the preliminary steps.
Sd/-
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE //True copy// P.A. To Judge smv