Dismissed

Ramani Asokan v. Kerala State Housing Board

Kerala HC17 Feb 2014WP(C)/3438/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition seeking enforcement of a mandatory injunction delivered in O.S.No.2506/2008. The judgment held the writ remedy was unavailable due to the three-year limitation period under Article 135 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which had already expired.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed without any relief being granted to the petitioner.

Ramani Asokan Vs Kerala State Housing Board — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014/28TH MAGHA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 3438 of 2014 (D)

¶6

OS NO. 2506/2008 OF II ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, THRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

RAMANI ASOKAN, AGED 60 YEARS, HOUSE NO 42, KSHB COLONY , PULLAZHY VILLAGE, POST , THRISSUR TALUK.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.V.BINOY RAM SMT.SAJITHA P.SOMAN

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1. KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, REP BY REGIONAL ENGINEER, KOCHI HOUSING UNIT, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-36.

¶12

2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, THRISSUR DIVISION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR TALUK, PIN-3.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE BOBAN, SC, K.S.H.B.

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-02-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Kss

¶16

WP(C).No. 3438 of 2014 (D)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶19

EXT.P1:-TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD 20/11/2009 IN OS NO.2506/2008 OF IIND ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, THRISSUR.

¶20

EXT.P2:-TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE DTD 24/06/2013.

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶22

----------------------------------------N I L

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

Kss

P.N.RAVINDRAN , J.

¶27

W.P.(C) No.3438 of 2014

¶28

Dated this the 17^th day of February, 2014

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

The prayer in this writ petition filed by the wife of the plaintiff in O.S.No.2506 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the II Additional Munsiff of Thrissur is for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to comply with Ext.P1 judgment delivered in that suit. By Ext.P1 judgment delivered on 20.11.2009 in O.S.No.2506 of 2008, the trial court directed the defendants (the respondents herein) to refix the plaintiff's liability in accordance with the declaration made therein. The defendants were also restrained by a permanent prohibitory injunction from initiating steps to recover any amount from the plaintiff.

¶31

Under Article 135 of the Limitation Act, 1963 the period of limitation prescribed for enforcement of a decree granting a mandatory injunction is three years from the date of the decree or where a date is fixed for performance within three years from such date. Computed with reference to the date of the decree, the period of three years stipulated in Article 135 of the Limitation Act, 1963 expired on 20.11.2009, for the reason that no period was fixed in the decree for performance. The petitioner cannot therefore resort to the

¶32

W.P.(C) No.3438/2014

¶33

¶34

remedy by way of a writ petition and seek enforcement of a decree which is otherwise not executable. That apart it is not in dispute that challenging the decree and judgment passed by the trial court, though belatedly, the defendants have filed A.S.No.332 of 2013 in the Court of the District Judge of Thrissur. Therefore for that reason also, I am of the opinion that no relief can be granted in the instant writ petition. The petitioner will have to wait till the appeal is disposed of and thereafter take appropriate steps as are required in the event of the

¶35

decree being maintained, to execute the appellate decree. Without prejudice to that right, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶36

(JUDGE)

¶37

vps

Ramani Asokan v. Kerala State Housing Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramani Asokan v. Kerala State Housing Board

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

S.Manikandan Vs P.Venugopalan Nair

Joseph Mathew Vs Superintending Engineer

Sarojini Vs the Joint Director

Manikuttan @ Manikandan Vs the District Collector

Sunil Kumar C. Vs State of Kerala

Sr.Rose Cornelia Vs the District Collector