Disposed

Latin Catholic Arch Diocese v. M.Bhuvanachandran

Kerala HC11 Mar 2011OP(C)/664/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge order addresses the prolonged pendency of two applications filed under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC concerning tenancy rights and obstruction during execution. The court directed the trial court to dispose of the matter expeditiously within six months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the III Additional Munsiff, Thiruvananthapuram to dispose of the pending Rule 97 applications under O.S. No. 200 of 1998 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate before 30.06.2011.

Latin Catholic Arch Diocese Vs M.Bhuvanachandran — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2011 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1932

¶5

OP(C).No. 664 of 2011(O)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN EA 141/06 IN OS.200/1998 OF III ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶7

PETITIONER

¶8

¶9

LATIN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS BISHOP RT.REV.SOOSAI PAKYAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SMT.M.HEMALATHA

¶11

RESPONDENT: ---------------

¶12

M.BHUVANACHANDRAN, S/O.MADHAVAN, CHIEF EDITOR, DESANADHAM FORTNIGHTLY MAGAZINE, CITY OFFICE, T.C.27/1640, GENERAL HOSPITAL JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 035.

¶13

ADV. SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SRI.GEORGE MATHEW SRI.DIPU JAMES

¶14

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

K.T.SANKARAN, J.

¶16

O.P.(C). NO. 664 OF 2011

¶17

Dated this the 11^th day of March, 2011

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The petitioner is the decree holder in O.S.No.200 of 1998 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff of Thiruvananthapuram. The suit was filed for cancellation of a document, for declaration of title and for recovery of possession. The suit was decreed on 7.8.2002. Some of the defendants filed A.S.No.27 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, which was dismissed as per Ext.P1 judgment dated 6.9.2005. The execution proceedings were going on. The Amin was appointed who visited the property on 17.11.2003. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Amin was obstructed by the judgment debtor. However, it is stated that stay was granted in the First Appeal and the execution proceedings could not be continued thereafter. After the dismissal of the appeal on 6.9.2005, the judgment debtor filed R.S.A.No.26 of 2006 before the High Court, which was dismissed in limine on 25.1.2006 as per Ext.P2 judgment.

¶20

O.P.(C) NO.664 OF 2011

¶21

:: 2 ::

¶22

The execution proceedings were continued. On 27.1.2006, the respondent herein, who is a stranger to the suit, filed E.A.No.141 of 2006 (Ext.P3) under Rule 97 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure praying to adjudicate the right of tenancy claimed by the respondent in the decree schedule property. E.A.No.141 of 2006 is not disposed of. On 31.1.2006, the decree holder filed Ext.P5 application (E.A. number is not mentioned) under Rule 97 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, for removal of the obstruction caused by the respondent herein. That application is also not disposed of.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in both the aforesaid applications (the application filed by the respondent herein under Rule 97 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure as well as the application filed by the decree holder under Rule 97 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure) evidence was taken and the evidence was closed on 28.7.2007. It is submitted that the applications were heard on 19.2.2010 and they were posted for orders on 16.3.2010. The case was again re-opened and it was posted for orders on various dates. Again, the case was re-opened.

¶24

O.P.(C) NO.664 OF 2011

¶25

:: 3 ::

¶26

It is submitted that the matter was again heard and it was posted for orders. The counsel submits that till today no orders are passed.

¶27

Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that adjournment of the case was necessitated because of various factors including the strike by a section of lawyers and the consequent disruption of work in Court. It is also submitted that, for a considerable period of time, no judicial officer was posted.

¶28

Whatever may be the reason, the applications are pending for the last several years. It is necessary to dispose of those applications. The prayer made by the petitioner is to issue a direction to the III Additional Munsiff, Thiruvananthapuram to pass orders on the aforesaid two applications filed under Rule 97 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶29

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the matter was heard by the predecessor in office of the present officer and, therefore, it is necessary to post the case for hearing again.

¶30

O.P.(C) NO.664 OF 2011

¶31

:: 4 ::

¶32

Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the Original Petition is disposed of directing the III Additional Munsiff, Thiruvananthapuram to hear and dispose of E.A.No.141 of 2006 in E.P.No.123 of 2003 in O.S.No.200 of 1998 as well as the application filed by the decree holder under Rule 97 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure in the aforesaid Execution Petition, as expeditiously as possible and, at any rate, before 30.6.2011.

¶33

(K.T.SANKARAN) Judge

¶34

ahz/

Latin Catholic Arch Diocese v. M.Bhuvanachandran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Latin Catholic Arch Diocese v. M.Bhuvanachandran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.a.Amy Vs the Land Acquisition Officer

Saramma George Vs K.C.Varkey

Gopalan Nair Vs State of Kerala

Akru @ Vipin Vs State of Kerala

G.Gopakumar Vs State Bank of India

Paul Thomas Vs Abraham