The court noted the writ petition was defective due to non-service on the third respondent but dispensed with notice. It held that a writ petition under Article 227 is not maintainable to challenge an execution order under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC as such orders are treated as decrees appealable under law.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH JUNE 2007 / 30TH JYAISHTA 1929
WP(C).No. 36954 of 2004(Y)
-------------------------EA.189/04 IN EP.134/2002 IN OS.1974/99 of MUNSIFF COURT,CHENGANNUR ....................
PETITIONER:
LEENA, KALLAKULATHU HOUSE, VADAKKUM BHAGOM MURI, CHIRAKKADAVU VILLAGE.
BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS
RESPONDENTS:
BY ADV. SRI.R.HARIKRISHNAN
SRI.SUDHEENDRAN. K.Y. SRI.N.ASHOK KUMAR SMT.R.REMA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/06/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC.36954/04
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXTS:
EXT.P1 – TRUE COPY OF CLAIM PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE MUNSIFF'S COURT, CHENGANNUR.
EXT.P2 – TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.18.10.04 IN EA.189/04 IN EP.134/02 IN O.S. 1974/99 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, CHENGANNUR.
/TRUE COPY/
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.
W.P.(C)No.36954 OF 2004
........................................................... DATED THIS THE 20TH JUNE, 2007
J U D G M E N T
This Writ Petition is remaining defective for non-completion of service of notice on the 3rd respondent. But I find that the 3rd respondent was sailing along with respondents 1 and 2 before the court below. Notice to the 3rd respondent is dispensed with.
(PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)
tgl
WP(C)N0.
-2-
WP(C)N0.
-3-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition under Article 227 is maintainable to challenge an order passed under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC which constitutes a decree for appeal purposes.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Leena
M/S. Sheryas
P. Valsaraj
Usha
Pius C. KuriaKose
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
