Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
T.R.RAVI
Subhadra – Appellant
Versus
Kalukurumban (Died) S/O.Kodungali – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
T.R. Ravi, J.
The original petition has been filed with the following prayers:
“(A) Call for the records leading to Exhibit P1(a) decree and execute Exhibit P1(a) decree, as prayed for, in the interest of justice.
(B) Call for the records leading to Exhibit P10 order, set aside the same and allow E.A.No.97 of 2025, as prayed for, in the interest of justice
(C) Issue such other order or direction as are necessary in the nature of this case
(D) Dispense with production English translation of vernacular documents produced herewith.”
Petitioners filed O.S.No.539 of 1984 before the Munsiff Court, Perumbavoor for declaration of title and injunction. The suit was decreed as per Ext.P1 judgment. The defendants carried the judgment in appeal. The appeal was dismissed by the Sub Court, Perumbavoor as per Ext.P2 judgment dated 29.06.2009. The defendants filed a second appeal before this Court as R.S.A. No.414 of 2010, which was also dismissed. The judgment of this Court was challenged by the defendants by filing a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed by Ext.P4 judgment on 27.02.2023. By then, 39 years had already gone by after instituting the suit.
Article 227 empowers High Court to direct police aid for execution despite technical impleadment bars.
Execution of decree – Execution can proceed even if formal decree is not drawn – Quoting a wrong statutory provisions does not create a bar and stand in way of considering application.
The executing court's authority under Section 47 CPC does not permit re-examining claims already adjudicated, affirming the finality of past decisions in execution matters.
An ex parte decree that is cryptic and non-compliant with procedural requirements cannot be executed; necessary amendments to parties and relief sought must be pursued to validate execution.
The court emphasized the necessity for timely judicial resolution amidst procedural delays encountered due to external obstructions.
The executing Court must allow parties the opportunity to present their case and cannot proceed with execution if misleading information affects judicial integrity.
Order 21 Rue 23 deals with the procedure to be followed after getting notice under Order 21 Rule 22.
The executing court is bound by the decree's terms and cannot entertain objections that do not pertain to jurisdiction, even if the decree is allegedly erroneous.
The execution of an ex parte decree is not barred by limitation if the decree has merged with a revisional order, resetting the limitation period for enforcement.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
