Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH FRIDAY, THE14H DAY OF MARCH201423RD PHALGUNA, 1935 OP(C).No. 771 of 2014 (O) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- SARALA SASIDHARAN, RESIDING ATMELATHIL VEEDU, UNNIMOODU, POOTHAKULAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------- 1. SATHYABHAMA SATHY, RESIDING AT MELATHIL VEEDU, UNNIMOODU , POOTHAKULAM VILLAGE2 SUDHAKARAN, S/O. PANKAJAKSHY, RESIDING ATPUTHENVILA VEEDU, UNNIMOODU, POOTHAKULAM VILLAGE.
3. MOHANAN, S/O. PANKAJAKSHY, RESIDING ATPUTHENVILA VEEDU, UNNIMOODU, POOTHAKULAM VILLAGE4 SURENDRAN, S/O. PANKAJAKSHY RESIDING ATPUTHENVILA VEEDU, UNNIMOODU, POOTHAKULAM VILLAGE5 PRABHAVATHY, D/O. PANKAJAKSHY, PLAVILAPUTHEN VEEDU, SARADAMUKKU, POOTHAKULAM VILLAGE6 AMMINI, D/O. PANKAJAKSHY, CHAKKITTAYIL VILA VEEDU, PALAYAMKUNNU, KOVOOR, AYIROOR VILLAGE7 DHARAN, W/O. RADHAMANI, KOTTAVILA VEEDU, ELAKAMON DESOM , AYIROOR VILLAGE OP(C).No. 771 of 2014 (O) -------------------------- ---2-- 8. SHYLAJAN, S/O. RADHAMANI, KOTTAVILA VEEDU, ELAKAMON DESOM, AYIROOR VILLAGE9 MINI, D/O. RADHAMANI, KOTTAVILA VEEDU, ELAKAMON DESOM, AYIROOR VILLAGE10 BINDHU, D/O. RADHAMANI, KOTTAVILA VEEDU, ELAKAMON DESOM, AYIROOR VILLAGE.
11. AMBIKA, D/O. PANKAJAKSHY, PUTHENVILAVEEDU, SARADAMUKKU, POOTHAKULAM VILLAGE12 TERBIN, S/O. SASIDHARAN RESIDING ATMELATHIL VEEDU, UNNIMOODU, POOTHAKULAM VILLAGE THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON1403-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(C).No. 771 of 2014 (O) -------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1 COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT
DATED206-2000 IN O.S. NO.368/1996 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, VARKALA EXT.P2 COPY OF THE E.P. NO.6/2003 IN O.S. NO.36/1997 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT,VARKALA DATED42-2003 EXT.P3 COPY OF THE E.A. NO.4/2014 IN E.P NO.6/2003 IN O.S. NO.36/1997 BEFOR ETHE MUNSIFF COURT, VARKALA EXT.P4 COPY OF the OBJECTION IN E.P NO.6/2003 IN O.S. NO.36/97 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT,VARKALA FILED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXT.P5 COPY OF THE ORDER
DATED142-2014 IN E.P NO.6/2003 IN O.S. NO.36/97 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT,VARKALA EXT.P6 COPY OF THE E.A. NO.149/2014 DATED2110-2010 IN E.P NO.6/2003 IN O.S. NO. 36/97 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, VARKALA EXT.P7 COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE DATED218-2014 IN E.A. NO.149/2014 IN E.P NO.6/2003 IN O.S. NO.36/97 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, VARKALA RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS NIL TRUE COPY P.A TO JUDGE SMM V.CHITAMBARESH,J.
= = = = = = = = = = = O.P.(C) No.771 of 2014 = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = Dated this the 14th day of March, 2014
JUDGMENT
An execution application filed to implead a third party to the decree in an Execution Petition has been dismissed by the court below by the order impugned. The petitioner is the widow of the first defendant in O.S No.36/1997 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff of Varkala. The operative part of the judgment therein reads as follows. "O.S No.36/1997 is decreed allowing the Ist plaintiff to strengthen her southern boundary line and the defendants shall not obstruct her. Similarly, the counter claim is decreed. The title and possession of the Ist defendant over the 'CDEF' plot in Ext.C1 plan is declared. The Ist plaintiff is restrained by a perpetual injunction from encroaching the counter claim schedule property and doing anything interfering with the right of the Ist defendant over the same. No costs." The petitioner has filed E.P No.6/2013 to execute the decree in the counter claim in O.S No.36/1997 referred to above. The counter claim has been decreed as against the first plaintiff/ first respondent only and no third party could be impleaded in the execution petition. It is trite law that the executing court cannot go behind the decree and can only execute the decree as O.P.(C) No.771 of 2014 2 it stands. The contention of the petitioner that the property in fact belongs to the son of the first respondent who has also to be impleaded in this Execution Petition cannot be countenanced. There is no error of jurisdiction in the order refusing impleadment in the Execution Petition warranting interference in the supervisory jurisdiction. The Original Petition fails and is dismissed. V.CHITAMBARESH JUDGE smm