Dismissed

C.G.Thampi, v. Jyothis

Kerala HC24 May 2022OP(C)/855/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a stay on execution of a specific performance decree by filing an original petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court held that pendency of related suits is not a valid ground to stay execution of a valid decree and dismissed the petition as having no merit.

What did the court decide?

Stay applications in execution proceedings EP No.27/2016 in OS 71/2014 were denied.

C.G.Thampi, Vs Jyothis — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN TUESDAY, THE 24^TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1944 OP(C) NO. 855 OF 2022

¶4

SEEKING STAY IN EXECUTION PETITION NO.27/2016 IN OS

¶5

71/2014 PENDING CIVIL MATTER BEFORE THE HON'BLE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF'S COURT OF KOCHI UNTIL FINAL DISPOSAL OF OS

¶6

356/2013

¶7

PETITIONER/1ST JUDGEMENT DEBTOR/1ST DEFENDANT :

¶8

C.G.THAMPI, AGED 80 YEARS, S/O. LATE GOPALAN, PENSIONER, RESIDING AT CHELAKKAT HOUSE, UC COLLEGE P.O., ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT BY ADV K.P.UNNI

¶9

RESPONDENTS/DECREEHOLDER AND JUDGEMENT DEBTORS 2-

¶10

5/PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS 2 TO 5:

¶11

1 JYOTHIS AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS S/O. VIJAYAN, THALAPPILLIL HOUSE, NAYARAMBALAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, COCHIN 682 502.

¶12

2 AYSHA, AGED 42 YEARS W/O. PURUSHAN, KAIMALAMKARA HOUSE, CHERAI P.O, PALLIPPURAM VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK- 683 514.

¶13

O.P.(C)No.855 of 2022

¶14

..2..

¶15

3 LEENA, AGED 68 YEARS, W/O. RAJAN, PUNNAKATHARAYIL HOUSE, KOOLIMUTTOM, KAZHUVILANGU DESOM, MATHILAKOM, VEMBALLOOR P.O., KODUNGALUR TALUK- 680 685.

¶16

4 SOJA, AGED 62 YEARS W/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN, J.M. PARADISE, FLAT NO. 54, THAMMANAM, PALARIVATTOM P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 682 021.

¶17

5 JOSHI, AGED 66 YEARS S/O. GOPALAN, CHELLAKKATT HOUSE, EDAVANAKKAD P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 682 502.

¶18

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

O.P.(C)No.855 of 2022

¶20

..3..

¶21

A.BADHARUDEEN, J.

¶22

O.P.(C)No.855 of 2022

¶23

------------------------------------------------------------

¶24

Dated this the 24^th day of May, 2022

¶25

J U D G M E N T

¶26

In this original petition filed under Article 227 of

¶27

the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is the first judgment debtor in E.P.No.27 of 2016 in O.S.No.71 of 2014 of the Principal Munsiff's Court, Kochi seeks the following relief;

¶28

To grant the stay the execution proceedings in EP No.27/2016 in OS 71/2014 pending before the Hon'ble Principal Munsiff's Court of Kochi until the final disposal of OS 356/2013.

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the

¶30

petitioner on admission.

¶31

It is submitted by the learned counsel for

¶32

the petitioner that another suit in between the same

¶33

O.P.(C)No.855 of 2022

¶34

..4..

¶35

parties viz., O.S.No.356 of 2013 of the Principal Munsiff's Court, Kochi is pending seeking relief of fixation of boundary. He also submitted that another suit viz., O.S.No.108 of 2018 of the Principal Munsiff's Court, Kochi also is pending between the parties for partition of the plaint schedule property.

¶36

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, if the decree in O.S.No.71 of 2014 is executed, the same would prejudice the rights of the petitioner and therefore, the execution of the decree in O.S.No.71 of 2014 is liable to be stayed. No other valid grounds pointed out to substantiate the prayer sought for.

¶37

On perusal of the records, decree for specific performance of contract as canvassed in O.S.No.71 of 2014 was passed as on 07.04.2015. After one year, the decree holder filed E.P.No.27 of 2016 to execute the decree. It appears that pendency of other

¶38

O.P.(C)No.855 of 2022

¶39

..5..

¶40

suits is not a ground to stay execution of a valid decree passed otherwise. Thus, prima facie, it appears that the prayer in this original petition is not liable to be granted.

¶41

In view of the matter, this original petition

¶42

deserves no merit and accordingly, the same is dismissed.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

A.BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE

¶45

rkj

¶46

O.P.(C)No.855 of 2022

¶47

..6..

¶48

APPENDIX OF OP(C) 855/2022

¶49

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶50

Exhibit P1 COPY OF OS 356/2013 PENDING BEFORE THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF COURT OF KOCHI. Exhibit P2 COPY OF E.P NO. 27/2016 IN OS 71/2014 PENDING BEFORE THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF COURT OF KOCHI.

¶51

Exhibit P3 COPY OF OS 108/2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF COURT OF KOCHI. Exhibit P4 COPY OF OP(C) 1927/2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA WITHOUT EXHIBIT.

C.G.Thampi, v. Jyothis

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.G.Thampi, v. Jyothis

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

Jitha Sajeevan Vs Vineshmon

Joshna M.K. Vs Ganesh Nadar

Mohana Dasan Vs Vijayan C K

P.C.Chacko Vs Palackal Timbers

Runs Mon Vs Simpol

Ramla Vs Lilly George