The court stayed execution of an eviction order for five days to allow receipt of the certified copy, while clarifying that it does not prevent the respondent from entering and residing in the house without harassment to the petitioners.
Execution of eviction order staying for five days; copy of order to be issued.
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 THOMAS P.JOSEPH
MONDAY, THE 6TH JUNE 2011 / 16TH JYAISHTA 1933
OP(Crl.).No. 1793 of 2011(Q)
---------------------------C.M.P.NO.3010/2011 IN MC.117/2009 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KAYAMKULAM
PETITIONERS (S):
BY ADV. SMT.K.NANDINI
SRI.SUNIL.M.KARANY SRI.M.G.SREEJITH
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------VIJAYAMMA, D/O.NANU, VRINDAVANAM VEEDU, THEKEMANKUZHI, BHARANIKKAVU VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT – 688 502.
THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
O.P.(Crl.) No.1793 of 2011 -------------------------------------Dated this the 6th day of June, 2011.
JUDGMENT
Petitioners are respondents in M.C.No.117 of 2009 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kayamkulam, a proceeding initiated by the respondent under provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (for short, “the Act”). Learned Magistrate passed Ext.P3, order on April 8, 2011 in the said proceeding directing petitioners to give vacant possession of the house by name 'Vrindhavanam' referred to in the said order to the respondent within three weeks from the date of order. Learned counsel submitted that challenging the said order petitioners have filed Crl.Appeal No.243 of 2011 before the learned Sessions Judge, Alappuzha. As it happened that the appeal was preferred after 18 days of prescribed time an application to condone the delay was preferred on which learned Sessions Judge has ordered notice. Since the delay is not condoned, learned Sessions Judge has not passed any order staying operation of Ext.P3, order. In the meantime, respondent filed C.M.P.No.3010 of 2011 under Section 31 of the Act before the learned Magistrate. Learned Magistrate posted that petition for appearance of petitioners on 03.06.2011. It is submitted that on 04.06.2011 learned Magistrate passed an order directing petitioners to vacate the house on 07.06.2011. It is the grievance of petitioners that they have applied for a copy of the order (learned counsel submitted that the application for copy of order dated
OP(Crl.) No.1793/2011
2
04.06.2011 was filed this day), but copy of the order has not been issued and in the meantime the order dated 04.06.2011 on C.M.P.No.3010 of 2011 is to be executed on 07.06.2011. Learned counsel has submitted that petitioners are staying in the house in question and they have no place to go. It is therefore, prayed that operation of Ext.P3, order may be stayed so that in the meantime, petitioners could challenge the order on C.M.P.No.3010 of 2011.
Resultantly this petition is disposed of in the following lines:
i. Learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kayamkulam is directed to issue a copy of order dated 04.06.2011 on C.M.P.No.3010 of 2011 in M.C.No.117 of 2009 to the petitioners as early as possible (if it has already been applied for) if necessary, giving it top priority.
OP(Crl.) No.1793/2011
3
ii. It is directed that operation of order dated 04.06.2011 on C.M.P.No.3010 of 2011 in M.C.No.117 of 2009 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kayamkulam will stand in abeyance till the expiry of five days from the date notified for delivery of copy of the order on C.M.P.No.3010 of 2011.
iii. It is made clear that this order keeping the order on C.M.P.No.3010 of 2011 in abeyance will not prevent the respondent also staying in the house in question. In that event, petitioners are directed not to cause any hindrance for such stay of respondent or, cause any harassment to her.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge.
cks
1 issue framed by the court
Whether execution of the eviction order should be stayed pending the status of the petitioners' delayed appeal.
PRASANNAN AND ANR.
VIJAYAMMA
THOMAS P. JOSEPH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
