SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Ker) 533

KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
Suhara Beevi – Appellant
Versus
Sainudheen – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: R. Santhosh (Varkala), Mukesh Kumar G., S. Jayakrishnan (Varkala), Yayathi Vijayan, Adwaith Suseel.

ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging Annexure 5 order passed by the Munsiff's Court, Varkala (for short ‘the execution court’) in E.P. No.15/2016 in O.S. No.99/2004, ordering delivery of the property.

2. The petitioner is the judgment debtor, and the respondent is the decree-holder in E.P. No.15/2016. As early as in 2004, a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction was passed against the petitioner, restraining her from trespassing into plaint A and B schedule properties and in the house bearing No.VIII/74-B of Edava Panchayath situated therein. According to the respondent, on 20.4.2015, the petitioner trespassed into the plaint-schedule house and occupied it, violating the decree. It was in these circumstances that the Execution Petition was filed. The prayer in the Execution Petition was to enforce the decree by detaining the petitioner in civil prison for wilful disobedience of the decree and to evict her from the plaint schedule house. In the Execution Petition, the petitioner took up a contention that since the decree was for permanent prohibitory injunction alone, the prayer in the Execution Petition to evict her from the plaint schedule house is no

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top