Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M.I.POULOSE versus STATE OF KERALA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M.I.POULOSE v. STATE OF KERALA - Crl MC No. 3584 of 2006 [2007] RD-KL 7018 (3 April 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 3584 of 2006()

1. M.I.POULOSE,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent

2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,

3. RAGHAVAN NAIR,

For Petitioner :SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM

For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :03/04/2007

O R D E R

R.BASANT, J.

Crl.M.C.NO.3584 OF 2006

Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2007.

ORDER

The petitioner had filed a petition before the Sub Divisional Magistrate and proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C were initiated. A conditional order Annexure-A1 was passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. Later, by Annexure-A2 order, the conditional order was confirmed and made absolute.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that subsequently there has been interference with the rights of the petitioner in violation of Annexure-A2 order. Thereupon Annexure-A3 application was filed for enforcement of Annexure-A2 order. Annexure-A4 report was obtained from the Village Officer. Annexure-A5 is the report submitted by the Village Officer prior to the passing of Annexure-A2 order.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of such clinching material to show that Annexure-A2 has been violated, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, by Annexure-A6 order, has directed that the matter shall be kept in abeyance in view of O.S.94 of 2003, which was filed before the Munsiff's Court, Devikulam. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Crl.M.C.NO.3584 OF 2006 2 Annexure-A7 has nothing to do with Annexure-A2 order, which is sought to be executed and in these circumstances, Annexure-A6 is liable to be set aside and the Sub Divisional Magistrate must be directed to execute Annexure-A2 order.

4. Notice was issued to the respondent. The respondent has entered appearance. It is not explained how Annexure-A7 decree can stand in the way of execution of Annexure-A2 order. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that Annexure-A6 order deserves to be set aside and the Sub Divisional Magistrate ought to be directed to execute Annexure-A2 order in accordance with law.

5. In the result, this Crl.M.C is, allowed. Annexure-A6 order is set aside. The Sub Divisional Magistrate is directed to execute Annexure-A2 order as expeditiously as possible - at any rate, within a period of 60 days from this date.

6. Issue copy of the order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. R.BASANT

JUDGE

rtr/


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.