Disposed

Bhaskaran v. Lalitha Raghunathan

Kerala HC19 Oct 2012CRP/559/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a civil revision petition contesting eviction directives in execution of a rent decree. It permitted the judgment debtor to file a Special Appeal for extension of time to deposit the decree amount and ordered a stay on eviction for two months.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to move court for enlargement of time for deposit; petitioner not to be dispossessed for two months.

Bhaskaran Vs Lalitha Raghunathan — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/27TH ASWINA 1934

¶5

CRP.No. 559 of 2010 ( )

¶6

OS.173/1999 of MUNSIFF COURT, MAVELIKKARA

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER IN E.A.-JUDGMENT DEBTOR IN EP:

¶8

BHASKARAN

¶9

VELIYATHU HOUSE, EREZHA SOUTH MURI, KANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN

¶11

SMT.GEETHA P.MENON SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT IN EA-DECREE-HOLDER IN EP:

¶13

LALITHA RAGHUNATHAN, VRINDAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM BY ADV. SRI.RASHEED C.NOORANAD

¶15

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

V. CHITAMBARESH, J

¶17

C.R.P. NO. 559 OF 2010

¶18

Dated this the 19^th day of October, 2012

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The operative portion of the judgment in O.S. No. 173/1999 on the file of the court of the Munsiff of Mavalikkara reads as under:

¶21

(i) The suit is partly decreed entitling the plaintiff to realise ` 3,220/- being arrears of rent with 12% interest from the date of suit till the date of decree and 6% interest from the date of suit till realisation together with costs of the suit from the defendant and his assets.

¶22

(ii) The defendant is further directed to remit the arrears of rent within two months from the date of decree and on failure the plaintiff will be entitled to move the court for getting the vacant possession of the building.

¶23

The decree was confirmed by judgment dated 20.12.2008 in A.S. No. 6/2003 on the file of the court of the II Additional District Judge of Mavelikkara. The decree of the lower appellate court was further confirmed by judgment

¶24

¶25

CRP No. 559/2010

¶26

dated 04.11.2009 in S.A. No. 879/2009 on the file of this court. Thus the period of two months granted to the petitioner/judgment debtor to pay the arrears of rent with interest thereon under the decree expires on 04.01.2010. The respondent/decree holder thereafter filed E.P. No. 41/2010 in O.S. No. 173/1999 to realise the sum decreed to the tune of ` 36,980.40. The proceedings in the execution reveal that there was some dispute as regards calculation of the amount due under the decree towards the arrears of rent, interest and costs. The fact remains that the entire amount due under the decree has been deposited on 05.10.2010 by the petitioner and that no further amount is due under the decree.

¶27

It is trite law that the executing court cannot go behind the decree and can only execute the decree as it stands. The executing court cannot also condone the delay in effecting payment under the decree towards arrears of rent, interest and costs. The decree in fact provided for the payment of arrears of rent with interest and possession was directed to be delivered over only In the event of failure to pay the same in time. The

¶28

¶29

CRP No. 559/2010

¶30

delay of about nine months in making the payment has either to be condoned or the time granted under the decree extended.

¶31

I permit the petitioner to move this court in S.A. No. 870/2009 for enlargement of time to make the deposit of the amount due under the decree. I do so taking note of the fact that the petitioner is eaking out his livelihood by running a hotel. Nothing said in this judgment will disable the respondent from insisting fresh proceedings for evicting the petitioner in accordance with law. The petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the premises in question for a period of two months to enable him to work out his remedy as above.

¶32

The order of the court below directing delivery of the premises will remain intact in case no extension of time is

¶33

granted in S.A. No. 870/2009 when applied for by the petitioner.

¶34

The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶35

V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE

¶36

ncd

Bhaskaran v. Lalitha Raghunathan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhaskaran v. Lalitha Raghunathan

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

Devi Vs Kunhiraman

Sibichan Sebastian Vs Kochu Thressia

Leela Amma @Leela Vs Sarada Gopalakrishnan

K.A. Unnikrishanan Vs Golden Kuries

Reetha James Vs Justine

M.Raveendran Vs S.K.Jayachandran