Partly allowed

N.T. Joseph v. Antony ,S/O. Joseph

Kerala HC5 Nov 2012CRP/653/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the order directing arrest in civil prison for alleged violation of an injunction decree, regarding the construction of a property. However, the court maintained the order of attachment for six months and directed parties to seek necessary regularisation from the Corporation of Cochin before proceeding. The revision petition was disposed of with the below order affirmed su

What did the court decide?

Impugned order directing arrest set aside; order of attachment maintained for six months; parties directed to seek Corporation of Cochin permission before further construction.

N.T. Joseph Vs Antony ,S/O. Joseph — 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

MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/14TH KARTHIKA 1934

¶5

CRP.No. 653 of 2009 ( )

¶6

EP 197/2008 IN OS.481/2007 of MUNSIFF COURT, KOCHI

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/JUDGMENT DEBTOR:

¶8

N.T. JOSEPH, S/O. THOMAS,

¶9

AGED 67 YEARS, NEDIYAPARAMBIL., A.K. XAVIER ROAD THOPPUMPADY VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI. K.J. JOSEMON

¶11

SRI.MATHEW SKARIA SRI.JOSE THOMAS (PEEDIKAYIL) SRI.JOY JOSEPH (MUNDACKAL)

¶12

SRI.JOSE PALLAT

¶13

RESPONDENT(S)/PLAINTIFF:

¶14

ANTONY ,S/O. JOSEPH

¶15

AGED 58 YEARS, VATTAMAKKAL HOUSE, A.K. XAVIER ROAD THOPPUMPADY VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK.

¶16

BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) BY ADV. SRI.S.SUJIN

¶17

ADV. SRI. MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN

¶18

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

CRP NO. 653/2009

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

ANNEXURE I :	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT DATED 05.12.2007 IN THE SUIT.
ANNEXURE II :	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT DATED 24.05.2008 IN THE SUIT.
ANNEXURE III :	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT DATED 10.11.2008 IN THE EP IN THE SUIT.
ANNEXURE IV :	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE EP NO. 197/2008 IN OSNO. 481/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOCHI.
ANNEXURE V :	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF THE REVISION PETITIONER AS DW1 IN THE EP IN THE SUIT.
ANNEXURE VI :	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO. 481/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOCHI.
ANNEXURE VII :	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DECREE IN OS NO. 481/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOCHI.

¶22

/TRUE COPY/

¶23

P.A.TO JUDGE.

¶24

V. CHITAMBARESH, J

¶25

C.R.P. NO. 653 OF 2009

¶26

Dated this the 5^th day of November, 2012

¶27

ORDER

¶28

I heard Mr. Jose Pallat, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Mahesh V. Ramakrshnan, Advocate on behalf of the respondent.

¶29

The court below has by the order impugned directed the petitioner/judgment debtor to be arrested and detained in civil prison for a period of three months for alleged violation of a decree for prohibitory injunction. It is the contention of the respondent/decree holder that the petitioner continued with the construction activities notwithstanding the interim order of injunction and the final judgment decreeing the suit.

¶30

The petitioner points out that he only replaced the mud brick wall with hollow cement bricks which was constructed on the same basement and the tiled roof was also replaced by a translucent plastic roof. The reports of the Advocate Commissioner revealed that the construction had reached upto lintel level at the time the suit was filed and an

¶31

¶32

CRP No. 653/2009

¶33

interim order of injunction was obtained by the respondent.

¶34

It is not clear from the impugned order as to whether any provisions of the Kerala Municipality (Building) Rules have been violated by the petitioner in the construction. It is the case of the petitioner that he has already moved the Corporation of Cochin for permission/regularisation for effecting the construction in question.

¶35

The petitioner undertakes that he will not effect any further construction in the property unless and until he obtains appropriate orders from the Corporation of Cochin. I am therefore inclined to set aside the impugned order directing the arrest and detention in civil prison however maintaining the order of attachment passed by the court below for a period of six months under Order XXI Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶36

I direct the parties to maintain status quo and further construction or modification is possible only after obtaining appropriate permission/regularisation from the Corporation of Cochin. Either parties are entitled to move the appropriate authority and entitled to enforce the statutory provisions

¶37

¶38

CRP No. 653/2009

¶39

notwithstanding the order impugned.

¶40

The order of the court below is affirmed subject to the above reservation. The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of.

¶41

V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE

¶42

ncd

N.T. Joseph v. Antony ,S/O. Joseph

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.T. Joseph v. Antony ,S/O. Joseph

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

Santhoshji Vs Johnson

Beema Beevi Vs Yahya Beegumand

T.D.Vittal Vs Sreekar Kammath

Sara Maria Vs v.Jayaprakash

Viswanathan Pillai Vs Mr. K.G.Mohanlal, IFS

Muraleedharan Vs Jayan