Partly allowed

Thodupuzha Taluk Co-Operative Rubber Marketing Society v. Ancy

Kerala HC16 Feb 2018CRP/25/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision, the High Court of Kerala disposed of the petition challenging an execution court order that directed a judgment debtor to install CC cameras to monitor a disputed property for decree violations. The court held that the direction was permissible for decree implementation but allowed the decree holders to bear installation costs, reversing the burden on the debtor, provided surv

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was disposed of; the direction to the judgment debtor to bear costs of CC cameras was effectively overturned in favour of the decree holders.

Thodupuzha Taluk Co-Operative Rubber Marketing… — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 27TH MAGHA, 1939

¶5

CRP.No. 25 of 2015

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN E.P.NO.3 OF 2014 IN O.S.NO.318/2000 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, THODUPUZHA.

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT- JUDGMENT DEBTOR

¶8

THODUPUZHA TALUK CO-OPERATIVE RUBBER MARKETING SOCIETY NOW RENAMED AS THE THODUPUZHA TALUK CO-OPERATIVE RUBBER MARKETING & PROCESSING SOCIETY LTD NO. E 222, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶9

BY ADV.SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K)

¶10

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS- DECREE HOLDERS:

¶11

ANCY, W/O.LATE C.J.JOSEPH, CHAZHIKATTU HOUSE, THODUPUZHA KARA & VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA - 685 584.

¶12

ROSHAN JOSEPH S/O. LATE C.J.JOSEPH, CHAZHIKATTU HOUSE, THODUPUZHA KARA & VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA - 685 584.

¶13

DR.SAJAN JOSEPH, S/O. LATE C.J.JOSEPH, CHAZHIKATTU HOUSE, THODUPUZHA KARA & VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA - 685 584.

¶14

DR.DEEPK JOSEPH, S/O. LATE C.J.JOSEPH, CHAZHIKATTU HOUSE, THODUPUZHA KARA & VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA - 685 584.

¶15

DR.ANJU JOSEPH, D/O. LATE C.J.JOSEPH, CHAZHIKATTU HOUSE, THODUPUZHA KARA & VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA - 685 584.

¶16

R1-R5 BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)

¶17

R1-R5 BY ADV. SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE

¶18

R1-R5 BY ADV. SRI.P.PRIJITH

¶19

R1-R5 BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA

¶20

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

I.A.NO.205/2015 IN C.R.P.NO.25/2015

¶22

CLOSED

¶23

16/02/2018

¶24

SD/- P.SOMARAJAN, JUDGE

//TRUE COPY//

AHZ/

P.Somarajan, J.

C.R.P. No.25 of 2015 (D)

¶29

Dated this the 16^th day of February, 2018

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

Aggrieved by the order dated 5.1.2015 in E.P.No.3 of 2014 in O.S.No.318 of 2000 of the Munsiff's Court, Thodupuzha, the judgment debtor came up with this Revision.

¶32

The impugned order was passed by the Execution Court directing the judgment debtor to install close-circuit cameras in order to have a surveillance on the disputed way and to ascertain whether the judgment debtor has violated the order of injunction by parking vehicles in the decree schedule way for the purpose of loading and unloading goods. The Execution Petition was filed on the allegation that there is violation of the decree by the judgment debtor by parking vehicles in the decree schedule property for the purpose of loading and unloading goods. The Commissioner who visited

¶33

C.R.P. No.25 of 2015 (D)

¶34

:: 2 ::

¶35

the property had reported about parking of one lorry and loading of rubber scrap. Though an objection was filed to the Commissioner's report, prima facie, it appears that the report submitted by the Commissioner is acceptable. As such, it was accepted by the lower court. Directions were issued by the lower court to the judgment debtor for installation of CC cameras in order to have a surveillance over the property and to detect violation of the decree, if any, by the judgment debtor. The said order is under challenge in this Revision.

¶36

The order passed by the Execution Court is for the purpose of keeping the decree schedule property under the surveillance so as to find out whether there is any violation of the decree passed. In effect, it is one of the methods of implementation of the decree passed. From the nature and character of the decree passed and the matters to be implemented, installation of CC cameras is really a must and there cannot be any interference on the directions issued by the Execution Court. But, there is a further direction to the

¶37

C.R.P. No.25 of 2015 (D)

¶38

:: 3 ::

¶39

effect that the costs of installation of CC Cameras and its maintenance should be borne by the judgment debtor. The

¶40

duty of the Execution Court is to execute the decree as it stands. It should be within the four corners of the decree. In order to implement the decree as such, the Court has ample power to suggest alternative methods. Installation of CC Cameras being an alternative method in order to safeguard

¶41

the interests of the decree holders as per the decree is permissible and nothing is there to interfere with the said order except the costs of installation.

¶42

The learned counsel for the respondents/decree holders fairly submitted that they are prepared to install CC Cameras at their costs and sought permission to install one of the cameras at the entrance portion of the house of the judgment debtor. It was fairly conceded by the learned counsel appearing for the judgment debtor that they have no objection in installing sufficient number of CC Cameras in order to have full surveillance over the decree schedule

¶43

C.R.P. No.25 of 2015 (D)

¶44

:: 4 ::

¶45

property without obstructing the user of the pathway. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that in the case of installation of CC Cameras in front of the Society or the godown, as the case may be, it should not make any disturbance or obstruction to its free user. All other directions issued by the Execution Court will stand in force.

¶46

The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.

¶47

P. Somarajan Judge

¶48

ahz/

Thodupuzha Taluk Co-Operative Rubber Marketing Society v. Ancy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thodupuzha Taluk Co-Operative Rubber Marketing Society v. Ancy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kondotty Thakkeyekkal Mureed Co-Ordination Committee Vs K.T.Muhammed Ismail Thangal

Balakrishnan Vs Karunakaran

Jijimon Vs Celin Antony

Daniel Chellan Vs Narayanan Kunjan(Died)and Another

Gosri Commercial Chits (P) Ltd. Vs M.C Thomas

Sivanandan @ Sivadasan Vs Mathew