The Court dismissed an Original Petition challenging an executing court order appointing a commissioner to supervise the erection of a boundary wall. The petitioner, the judgment debtor prohibited from trespassing, objected to the commission, which the Court held was lawful and caused no prejudice.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW
TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/29TH POUSHA, 1937
OP(C).No. 1123 of 2015 ()
E.A.179/2014 IN E.P.517/2014 IN OS. NO.1045/1998 OF MUNSIFF COURT, KODUNGALLUR.
PETITIONER(S):
AMMINI, AGED 77 YEARS, W/O. BALAKRISHNAN, PALAPETTY PADINJAREPURAKKAL HOUSE, KAINPAMANGALAM VILLAGE AND DESOM, KODUNGALLUR TALUK.
BY ADV. SRI.K.S.BHARATHAN.
RESPONDENT(S):
1. DR.SETHU RATNAM, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.DHARMA RATNAM, KANDANGATH HOUSE, KAINPAMANGALAM VILLAGE AND DESOM, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, PIN-680 001.
2. RAJA RATNAM, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.DHARMA RATNAM, KANDANGATH HOUSE, KAINPAMANGALAM VILLAGE AND DESOM, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, PIN-680 001.
BY ADVS. SRI.K.NARAYANAN (PARUR), SRI.DEEPAK JOY.K.
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-01-2016, ALONG WITH CRP. NO.191/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
rs.
OP(C).No. 1123 of 2015
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
rs.
K.ABRAHAM MATHEW J.
-------------------------------------------------------O.P.(C)No.1123 of 2015 & C.R.P.No.191 of 2015
Dated this the 19th day of January, 2016
JUDGMENT/ORDER
Petitioner is the judgment debtor in O.S.No.1045 of 1998 of Munsiff Court, Kodungallur. The decree declares the title of the respondents to plaint schedule item No.1. It perpetually prohibits the petitioner from trespassing into that property and interfering with the respondents' possession and enjoyment thereof. Respondents filed an E.P complaining that the petitioner objected to their putting up a boundary and they prayed for the assistance of the court to put up boundary. The executing court has allowed it and appointed a commissioner to supervise putting up of the boundary. This is challenged.
O.P.(C)No.1123 of 2015 & C.R.P.No.191 of 2015 2
petitioner did not interfere with the respondents' right the prayer can be granted because it will not cause any prejudice to her. The boundary is being put up along the line identified by the trial court and it is being done under the supervision of a commissioner who has again identified the property in the execution proceedings.
In the result, this Original Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
K.ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE
cms
/True copy/ P.S.to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the executing court can be restrained from appointing a commissioner to supervise the putting up of a boundary despite an objection by the judgment debtor.
Whether the pending second appeal by the judgment debtor is a ground to deny the respondents relief for executing the decree.
Ammini
Dr. Sethu Ratnam
Raja Ratnam
K. Abraham Mathew
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
