Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 21ST MAGHA,1942 I.A.1685/2018 IN OS 324/2017 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT ,KOLLAM ------------- PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF: GUY CHARLES MURPHY AGED 80 YEARS, S/O. LATE JOSEPH MURPHY, 21-JAYALEKSHMI PURAM, 1ST STREET, NUNGAMBAKAM, CHENNAI - 600034., REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER CHANDRA MOHAN, AGED 52, S/O. LATE M. LOGU SINGH, F3, PAVITHRA FLAT NO.1, THANGEVELU STREET, MADIPPAKKAM, KANCHIPURAM DISTRICT, TAMILNADU.
BY ADVS. SRI.R.MOHANA BABU SRI.M.AJITH (KARICODE) RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: 1 GEORGE AUGUSTINE AGED 66 YEARS S/O. LATE GEORGE MUTHU NAYAGAM, MALIKAPARAMBU VEEDU, 2 JESSIE FERNANDEZ AGED 56 YEARS W/O. GEORGE AUGUSTIN FERNANDEZ, MALIKAPARAMBU VEEDU, 3 JOSEPH ANTONY FERNANDEZ AGED 64 YEARS S/O. GEORGE AUGUSTIN FERNANDEZ, MALIKAPARAMBU VEEDU, 4 SAMSON AGED 59 YEARS S/O. LATE GEORGE MUTHU NAYAGAM, MALIKAPARAMBU VEEDU,
5 MERINA JULIET AUGUSTINE FERNANDEZ D/O. LATE GEORGE MUTHU NAYAGAM, MALIKAPARAMBU VEEDU, PUNNATHALA CHERRY, THANGASSERY WARD, KOLLAM - 691007. 6 MOLLY FERNANDEZ AGED 49 YEARS D/O. LATE GEORGE MUTHU NAYAGAM, MALIKAPARAMBU VEEDU, PUNNATHALA CHERRY, THANGASSERY WARD, THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
SATHISH NINAN, J.
================== ================== Dated this the 10th day of February, 2021
JUDGMENT
The petitioner-plaintiff is aggrieved by the non-implementation of the order in IA 1930/2017 in OS 324/2017 on the files of the Principal Munsiff's Court, Kollam.
2. On 18.08.2018, IA 1930/2017 was ordered thus by the trial court:-
“In the result, this application is allowed. Let the Defendants, persons claiming under them and their henchmen be restrained by way of an interim injunction from interfering with the boundary intended to be put up in the Plaint Schedule Properties and also one to be put up to separate the Plaint B Schedule Property from the rest of the Plaint A Schedule Property and from the altering the present nature and lie of the Plaint Schedule Properties and from committing waste therein. However, it is made clear that any -: 2 :-
construction made by the Plaintiff would eventually be subject to the final determination of this suit. Taking into account the facts and circumstances, the Defendants are directed to pay costs of the proceedings to the Plaintiff.”
3. For supervising construction of the
compound wall in accordance with the aforesaid direction, the plaintiff sought for appointment of a Commissioner as per IA 1685/2018, which was allowed by the court on 29.08.2018. So far the
order has not been executed, is the grievance of
the petitioner.
4. There having been no interdictory orders,
there is no reason why the order passed by the court was not implemented so far. If the Commissioner appointed by the court fails to carry out the work as ordered, it is for the court to pass appropriate orders recalling the warrant and to appoint another commissioner or to give such other directions to see that the orders of the court are implemented. I am sure that appropriate steps will be taken by the trial court in the said -: 3 :- regard forthwith by advancing the posting of the case. Original petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- SATHISH NINAN JUDGE kns/- //True Copy// P.S. to Judge APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS 324/2017 OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, KOLLAM. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA 1930/2017 IN OS 324/2017 DATED 18.08.2018 OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, KOLLAM. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA 1685/2018 IN OS 324/2017 DATED 29.08.2018 OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, KOLLAM. ---------------