Murali v. Cleetus
Case brief
What is this about?
The court held that a fresh writ was unnecessary for alleged post-decree trespass in an execution proceeding for possession. The original petition was allowed, directing the execution court to proceed with the original Advocate Commissioner and setting aside a previous EA order.
What did the court decide?
Execution proceedings to conclude within three weeks using original Commissioner; EA 219/2009 set aside; fresh suit permitted for new trespass.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH
TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/13TH BHADRA 1934
OP(C).No. 614 of 2012 (O)
EP NO. 310/2002 IN OS.476/1995 of MUNSIFF COURT, NORTH PARAVUR
PETITIONER(S):
MURALI, S/O.SEETHANKAN, THAIVAPPUPARAMBIL, VAVAKKAD KARA MOOTHAKUNNAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.S.RAJESH
SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN
RESPONDENT(S):
CLEETUS, S/O.OUSO, ELANJIKKAL HOUSE VAVAKKAD KARA, MOOTHAKUNNAM VILLAGE ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-670673.
BY ADV. SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY BY ADV. SRI.R.V.RAHUL BY ADV. SRI.LIJIN THAMBAN
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the execution court can depute a new Advocate Commissioner to ascertain new trespass alleged after the decree.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Murali
- respondent
Cleetus
Coram
V. Chitambaresh
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court