Disposed

M.a.Nishad v. M.a.Habeebulla

Kerala HC29 Jun 2016OP(C)/102/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Order supervises proceedings in an original suit regarding specific performance. The petitioners, additional defendants facing execution, sought to prevent execution until pending applications to set aside an ex parte decree were decided. The High Court interceded under Article 227.

What did the court decide?

Directed trial court to dispose of IAs 51/2015 & 52/2015 within three weeks; directed Execution Court to keep proceedings in abeyance.

M.a.Nishad Vs M.a.Habeebulla — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/8TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

OP(C).No. 102 of 2015 (O) --------------------------

¶6

IA 51/2015 & 52/2015 IN OS 169/2012 of MUNSIFF COURT,THODUPUZHA

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/DEFENDANTS 3 TO 5:

¶8

1. M.A.NISHAD S/O ABDUL KHADER, MULADAN HOUSE, EDAVOOR P.O.,

¶9

2. SHINTO JOHN, S/O ALAPPAT JOHN, MULAVOOR, MUVATTUPUZHA.

¶10

3. M.H. SHEMEER, S/O MOLATHAN HASSAN, EDAVOOR P.O.,

¶11

BY ADV. SMT.SMITHA CHATHANARAMBATH

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/PLAINTIFF'S & DEFENDANTS NOS.1 &2/ADDL.RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1. M.A.HABEEBULLA S/O ALIYAR M.M. MULLAPPILLIL HOUSE, MULLARINGADU KARA, VANNAPPURAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK-685585

¶14

2. SIJO N. S/O GEORGE, NIRAPPEAL HOUSE, VANNAPPURAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK-685585

¶15

3. KUNJAN,S/O NEELAKANDAN, THANILUZHIYIL HOUSE, MULLARINGADU KARA, VANNAPPURAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK-685585VA

¶16

4. JOHN PAUL, S/O P.V. PAULOSE, PUTHUSSERY HOUSE, CHILAVANNOOR ROAD, KADAVANTHARA P.O., KADAVANTHARA KARA,ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, KOCHI-682020

¶17

ADDL.R5. VALSA, D/O. KUNJAN, MULLARINGATTUMURIYIL THANIKUZHIYIL, KODIKULAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶18

...2

¶19

OP(C).No. 102 of 2015 (O) (2)

¶20

ADDL.R6.	PRABHAKARAN, S/O. KUNJAN, MULLARINGATTUMURIYIL THANIKUZHIYIL, KODIKULAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT.
ADDL.R7.	ASOKAN, S/O. KUNJAN, MULLARINGATTUMURIYIL THANIKUZHIYIL, KODIKULAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT.
ADDL.R8.	HARIDAS, S/O. KUNJAN, MULLARINGATTUMURIYIL THANIKUZHIYIL, KODIKULAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT.
ADDL.R9.	SUJATHA, D/O. KUNJAN, MULLARINGATTUMURIYIL THANIKUZHIYIL, KODIKULAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT.
ADDL.R10.	GIGI, S/O. KUNJAN, MULLARINGATTUMURIYIL THANIKUZHIYIL, KODIKULAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT.
ADDL.R11.	REJI, S/O. KUNJAN, MULLARINGATTUMURIYIL THANIKUZHIYIL, KODIKULAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT.
ADDL.R12.	GETHA, D/O. KUNJAN, MULLARINGATTUMURIYIL THANIKUZHIYIL, KODIKULAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT.
ADDL.R13. (ADDL DATED	BIJU, S/O. KUNJAN, MULLARINGATTUMURIYIL THANIKUZHIYIL, KODIKULAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. . RESPONDENTS 5 TO 13 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER 29.6.2016 IN IA.9292/2015)

¶21

R1 BY ADV. SRI.REJI GEORGE R1 BY ADV. SRI.BINOY DAVIS

¶22

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29-062016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

OP(C).No. 102 of 2015 (O)

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF PLAINT IN O.S. NO. 169/2012

¶26

EXHIBIT P2:TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY 4TH RESPONDENT IN OS 169/2012

¶27

EXHIBIT P3:TRUE COPY OF THE E.P.NO. 8/2014 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT, THODUPUZHA

¶28

EXHIBIT P4:TRUE COPY OF I.A. NO.51/2015 IN O.S.NO. 169/2012 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT, THODUPUZHA WITH AFFIDAVIT

¶29

EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF I.A. NO.52/2015 IN O.S. NO.169/2012 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT, THODUPUZHA WITH AFFIDAVIT.

¶30

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL

OKB.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE.

K.HARILAL, J.

O.P.(C). No.102 of 2015

¶36

Dated this the 29^th day of June, 2016

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

The petitioners are additional defendants No.3 to

¶39

5 in O.S.No.169/12 on the files of the Munsiff's Court,

¶40

Thodupuzha. The aforesaid suit was filed for a specific performance by the respondents No.1 and 2 herein. According to the petitioners, they are the bona fide purchasers of a large extent of property including the plaint schedule property from the 4^th respondent. The suit was decreed ex parte and the said ex parte decree is sought to be executed in E.P.No.8/14 in the said original suit. The petitioners further submit that they have filed Exts.P4 & P5 applications to set aside the ex parte decree and to condone the delay in filing the application seeking to

¶41

set aside the ex parte decree, respectively. Both applications are pending consideration of the trial

¶42

OP(C).102/15 :2:

¶43

court and no order has been passed so far. The petitioners apprehend that if the execution petition is allowed before the disposal of Exts.P4 & P5, they will be deprived of their statutory right to challenge the original suit and thereby they will be put to irreparable injury and great loss. In the above premises, the petitioners sought for a direction to the court below to dispose Exts.P4 & P5 within a time frame and to direct the Execution Court to keep the execution petition in abeyance till the disposal of Exts.P4 & P5.

¶44

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶45

Having regard to the reasonableness of the request made by the petitioners, this Court is inclined to interfere with the proceedings of the court below under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The trial court is directed to consider and dispose Exts.P4 and P5 within a period of three weeks from the date of

¶46

OP(C).102/15 :3:

¶47

receipt of a copy of this judgment and the Execution

¶48

Court is directed to keep in abeyance the further proceedings in E.P.No.8/14 till the disposal of Exts.P4 and P5.

¶49

This original petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

K. HARILAL, JUDGE

¶52

okb.30/6

M.a.Nishad v. M.a.Habeebulla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.a.Nishad v. M.a.Habeebulla

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

Rajani Mol Vs Ajayan

Lawrence Joseph Vs Francis Joseph

Thankappan Vs Govindan Potti

T.K.Suresh Vs Safiya

K.Jameela Beevi Vs Shijan James

Biju Paul Vs Pathu Aliyar