Disposed

Thahakunju v. Sudheer

Kerala HC16 Jul 2019OP(C)/2952/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court observed that the lower court dismissed an application regarding the surrender of keys without addressing prior directions. The appellate court relegate the key suitability question to a later stage directed the lower court to expeditiously pass orders on the statement of accounts.

What did the court decide?

The question regarding the keys is relegated to a later appropriate stage; the lower court directed to consider the statement of accounts and pass appropriate orders expeditiously.

Thahakunju Vs Sudheer — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 25TH ASHADHA, 1941

¶5

OP(C).No.2952 of 2016

¶6

(AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN EP 59/2013 of MUNSIFF COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY DATED 23-05-2016 )

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

THAHAKUNJU AGED 50, S/O. KOYAKUTTY, PALLIVELIL VEEDU,KALLELIBHAGOM MURI, KALLELIBHAGOM VILLAGE,KARUNAGAPALLY, REP. BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEYHOLDER SHAHARBANA, AGED 19, D/O. THAHAKUNJU,PALLIVELIL VEEDU, KALLELIBHAGOM MURI,KALLELIBHAGOM VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

SUDHEER AGED 36, S/O. SAINULABDEEN, MACHINETHUTHARAYIL, MARUTHOORKULANGARA THEKU,KARUNAGAPALLY VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPALLY-673001.

¶12

BY ADVS. SRI.ASP.KURUP SRI.SADCHITH.P.KURUP

¶13

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

OP(C).No.2952 of 2016

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The petitioner herein is the decree holder. By Ext.P5 judgment by this court, execution court was directed to make an enquiry as to whether an amount of Rs.7,80,000/- (Rupees seven lakhs eighty thousand only) is due to the petitioner herein in view of the statement filed by both parties and to arrive at a conclusion accordingly. It was stated that the present statement of accounts filed by the parties are not sufficient. The parties were directed to produce additional statements and evidence thereon. Thereafter, it is seems that the petitioner filed EA.No.147/2017 along with the witness schedule consisting the address of two advocate commissioners and an independent witness to prove that the keys surrendered before the court was not suited for unlocking the shop. This application was dismissed by the court below on a premise that it was beyond the scope of the judgment of this court in Ext.P5.

¶18

¶19

OP(C).No.2952 of 2016

¶20

It seems that the judgment of this court in

¶21

Ext.P5 is clear regarding the scope of enquiry. Evidently, the question of ascertaining whether the keys surrendered before the court were satisfied or not, was a question that will arise at the time of actual delivery, if ordered, and if the amin reports accordingly. Appropriate orders can be passed by the court below at that stage. However, it seems that along with the dismissal of the application, the court below has not considered the directions of this court in Ext.P5. Accordingly, I am inclined to relegate the question whether the keys surrendered was one in relation to the lock of the disputed room to be considered at the later appropriate stage. The court below shall consider the statement of accounts as directed by this court in Ext.P5 and shall pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible.

¶22

O.P.(C) is disposed of as above.

¶23

sd/-

¶24

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

//True Copy//

PS to Judge

R.AV

OP(C).No.2952 of 2016

¶29

¶30

APPENDIX

¶31

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶32

EXT.P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD PASSED IN ADALATH CASE NO.P L P NO. 46/2011 DATED 22.7.2011.
EXT.P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN OP NOS 2886 AND 2887 OF 2014 DATED 05.1.2015 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXT.P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE EA NO. 21/2016 IN EP NO. 59/2013 IN P L P NO. 46/2011 DATED 23.5.2016 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY.
EXT.P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL JUDGMENT IN OPC NO. 1434/2016 DATED 24.6.2016 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXT.P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OPC NO. 3138/2015 DATED 24.6.2015.
EXT.P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN EP NO. 59/2013 IN P L P NO. 46/2011 DATED 19.10.2016 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, KARUNAGAPALLY.
EXT.P7	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OPC NO. 2886/2014 DATED 5.1.2015.
EXT.P8	A TRUE COPY OF THE EA NO. 147/2016 IN EP NO. 59/2013 IN P L P NO. 46/2011 DATED 3.11.2016 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, KARUNAGAPALLY.
EXT.P9	TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 28.10.2016.
EXT.P10	A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION AND CHECK APPLICATION OF THE RESPODNENT HEREIN DATED 20.10.2016.

¶33

OP(C).No.2952 of 2016

¶34

¶35

EXT.P11 A TRU COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN EA NO. 147/2016 IN EP NO. 59/2013 IN P L P NO. 46/2011 DATED 04.11.2016 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, KARUNAGAPALLY.

¶36

EXT.P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTARIZED POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 26.3.2016.

¶37

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS NIL

Thahakunju v. Sudheer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thahakunju v. Sudheer

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

Sreelatha, Vs a.John

Varghese @ Kunjumon Vs Aleyamma Chacko

Dr.Rohan Ninan Geroge Vs Dr.Jewel Jacob

K.Surendran Vs Abdul Razak P.B. (Died)

Jaffer Vs Coyalmannam Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Shaiju Thomas Vs Shaji