Dismissed

T.T.Mathew v. K.D.Sebatin

Kerala HC7 Jan 2016OP(C)/2619/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held executable, the decree required a commissioner to identify gate points. The court directed the commissioner to file a report post-hearing and allowed the gate installation only after court approval, ensuring execution completes by summer 2016.

What did the court decide?

Commissioner directed to fix gate points after hearing both sides and file report; gate installation subordinate to court approval of report.

T.T.Mathew Vs K.D.Sebatin — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/17TH POUSHA, 1937

¶5

OP(C).No. 2619 of 2014 (O)

¶6

IN EP NO.27/2013 IN OS NO.67/05 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERATTUPETTA

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:

¶8

T.T.MATHEW, S/O. THOMAS, THATTAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, THIDANADU KARA, KONDOOR VILLAGE.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.SHAJI THOMAS SRI.N.NAGARESH SRI.BINU PAUL SRI.T.V.VINU

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT:

¶11

K.D.SEBATIN, S/O. DEVASIA, KOOTTIYANIYIL HOUSE, THIDANADU KARA, KONDOOR VILLAGE-686 123.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.) BY ADV. SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI BY ADV. SRI.S.M.PRASANTH BY ADV. SMT.JINNU SARA GEORGE BY ADV. SMT.AMMU CHARLES BY ADV. SRI.C.DINESH.

¶13

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

rvs.

¶15

OP(C).No. 2619 of 2014 (O)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶18

EXHIBIT P1-	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DECREE DATED 21-05-2005 IN O.S.NO. 67/05 OF THE MUSIFF'S COURT, ERATTUPETTA.
EXHIBIT P2-	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF SKETCH NO. 5 PREPARED BY THE SURVEY COMMISSIONER AND MARKED AS EXT C2(B) IN OS 67/05 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERATTUPETTA.
EXHIBIT P3-	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27-06-2014 IN OS. NO. 167/2010 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERATTUPETTA.
EXHIBIT P4-	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF EP NO. 27/2013 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERATTUPETTA.
EXHIBIT P5-	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN E.P.NO. 27/2013.
EXHIBIT P6-	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27-9-2014 IN EP.NO. 27/2013 IN O.S.NO. 67/05 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERATTUPETTA.
EXHIBIT P7-	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27-09-2014 IN E.A.NO. 17/2014 IN EP.NO. 27/2013 IN OS NO. 67/05 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERATTUPETTA.

¶19

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE

rvs.

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW J.

¶25

O.P.(C)No.2619 of 2014

¶26

Dated this the 7^th day of January, 2016

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

Petitioner is the judgment debtor in O.S.No.67 of 2005 of Munsiff Court, Erattupetta. The respondent has obtained a decree against him. The decree permits the respondent to put up a gate across the road which has been constructed through the property purchased by him from the petitioner. When the respondent filed execution petition the petitioner filed objection. The court found that the decree is executable. It has appointed a commissioner and a surveyor to identify the points where the gate should be put up as per the decree. The petitioner is aggrieved by it.

¶29

Heard.

¶30

There is no doubt that the decree obtained by the respondent is executable. If in the process of executing it any injury is caused to the petitioner he can certainly approach the executing court to ensure that no injury caused to him. It is proper to issue a direction to the commissioner to identify the points where the gate should be put up and file a report before the executing court, which shall pass appropriate orders after hearing both sides. Only after the court approves the report the gate shall be put up.

¶31

O.P.(C)No.2619 of 2014 2

¶32

In the result, this Original Petition is disposed of with the

¶33

above directions. The execution proceedings shall be completed before the court closes for summer vacation in 2016.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE

¶36

cms

¶37

/True copy/ P.S.to Judge

T.T.Mathew v. K.D.Sebatin

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.T.Mathew v. K.D.Sebatin

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.K.Rajalakshmi Vs M.K.Satheeshan

Shanis T.M Vs State of Kerala

M.Abdul Rahim Vs J. Vijay Kumar

P.K.Mohammed Basheer Vs P.K.Zachariah

Bijimole Rasheed Vs Ranni Block Panchayat

Sureshkumar Vs Satheesan