Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MATHEW KURIAKOSE, AGED 31 versus JOSE MATHEW, AGED 42, S/O.MATHEW

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


MATHEW KURIAKOSE, AGED 31 v. JOSE MATHEW, AGED 42, S/O.MATHEW - CRP No. 323 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 9887 (8 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRP No. 323 of 2007()

1. MATHEW KURIAKOSE, AGED 31,
... Petitioner

2. ROSAMMA, KURIAKOSE, AGED 66, W/O.LATE

3. REEMA KURIAKOSE, AGED 36,

4. SHEENA KURIAKOSE,

Vs

1. JOSE MATHEW, AGED 42, S/O.MATHEW,
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.E.M.JOSEPH

For Respondent :SRI.SOJAN JAMES

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

Dated :08/06/2007

O R D E R

M.N.KRISHNAN, J.

C.R.P. No.323 2007 C

Dated this the 8th day of June, 2007.



JUDGMENT

This revision petition is preferred against the order of the Munsiff, Muvattupuzha in E.P.No.161/06 in O.S.No.243/96.

2. The suit was one for specific performance of a contract and the court decreed the suit directing the defendants to execute a document with respect to B scheduled property on receipt of a consideration of Rs.45,713/- and in case of default, to approach the court for getting the document executed through court. The defendants did not execute the document and therefore, the plaintiffs have come up with an application for execution of the document.

3. In the said execution petition, the respondents had filed a counter affidavit stating that the way of plaint 'A' schedule property cannot be used for traffic due to blasting of rocks and it must be put back to the original position. Otherwise, it will cause irreparable injury to the judgment debtors. The Executing Court negatived the objection and directed the decree holder to complete the steps before C.R.P. No.323 2007 proceeding further in the matter. It is against that, the present revision petition is filed.

3. The executability of the decree is only with respect to the contents that is seen in the decree as found in the judgment and therefore, the court is only expected to carry out the directions in the decree at the execution stage.

4. Here, the decree only mandates for execution of the document on receipt of balance consideration and in the event of failure, to execute the document through court. That is the only point to be considered and decided by the court and any other objection extraneous to the decree need not be and shall not be considered by the Executing Court.

5. Therefore, the Executing Court was perfectly justified in directing the decree holder to take steps and to proceed further. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition lacks merit and it is dismissed. Sd/- (M.N.KRISHNAN)

JUDGE

sk/ //true copy// P.S. To Judge


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.