Joy v. Ittianam
Case brief
What is this about?
Petitioners challenged execution order directing delivery of schedule properties, citing misidentification and health issues. Court dismissed petition, holding properties were clearly identifiable per prior judgment and granting further time was disentitled due to re-arguing rejected pleas.
What did the court decide?
Original petition fails and is dismissed.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/14TH KARTHIKA, 1935
OP(C).No. 3170 of 2013 (O)
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 506/2007 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT,THRISSUR
---------------------------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
1. JOY, AGED 46 YEARS S/O.PULIKKOTTIL VARGHESE, KARSHAKA NAGAR DESOM AYYANTHOLE VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, PIN-680003.
2. REENA, AGED 39 YEARS W/O.PULIKKOTTIL JOY, KARSHAKA NAGAR DESOM AYYANTHOLE VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, PIN-680003.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether execution court erred in ordering delivery of specific schedule properties properly identified in decree.
Whether petitioners are entitled to additional time to surrender possession of decree-scheduled property.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
JOY
- petitioner
REENA
- respondent
ITTIANAM
- respondent
VARGHESE
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court