Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 47771
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. Natarajan, J
M.Jabbar – Appellant
Versus
Abdul Karim Sait – Respondent
OP(C) NO. 2285 OF 2025 | EP NO.235/2023 | RCP NO.59 OF 2014
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Smt. Nisha George, Sri. George Poonthottam (Sr.), Sri. Philip T.Vargheese
For the Respondents: Smt. M.A.Vaheeda Babu, Sri. Babu Karukapadath, Shri. Karukapadath Wazim Babu, Smt. Arya Raghunath, Sri. P.K.Abdul Rahiman, Smt. P.Lakshmi, Smt. Aysha E.M., Shri. Hashim K.M., Shri. Abuasil A.K., Smt. Haniya Nafiza V.S., Shri. M.I.Insaf Mooppan, Shri. Rishi Vincent, Shri. Manu Krishna S.K.
A tenant's challenge against execution proceedings post-Division Bench orders is not maintainable without a stay from the Supreme Court.
Headnote:This judgment concerns the interlocutory application I.A.No.1/2025 to vacate the interim stay granted on 19.09.2025 regarding eviction proceedings initiated against the petitioner. The High Court ruled that the execution court had authority to proceed with the execution based on prior orders from a Division Bench. The court emphasized that the petitioner must seek a stay from the Supreme Court rather than filing petitions under Article 227. The key issues involved were the maintainability of the petition under Article 227 and whether an interim stay should continue. Ultimately, the court ruled that both the petition was not maintainable, and the interim order was vacated.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initiation of eviction proceedings. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments regarding interim stay and execution. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's authority on execution and maintainability. (Para 7 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. issues on maintainability of petitions under article 227. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. final decision and provisions for appeal. (Para 12 , 13) |
JUDGMENT
(Dated this the 29th day of September, 2025)
The interlocutory application, I.A.No.1/2025 in OP (C) No.2285/2025 filed by the applicants/respondents 1 to 3 for vacating the interim stay granted by this Court (in-charge) on 19.09.2025.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the applicants/respondents 1 to 3 and the counsel for the respondents/petitioner and respondents 4 to 9 in I.A.No.1/2025.
3. The case of the respondents in the Interlocutory application is that the applicants/respondents 1 to 3 initially filed the RCP No.160/2005 before the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam and obtained the order against the petitioner and other tenants. Subsequently, the matter reached to the Division Bench of this Court, wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 12.12.2022 dismissed the R.C.Rev. No.352 of 2019 filed by the applicants/respondents 1 to 3. The applicants/ respondents 1 to 3 not chosen to file any appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, they filed a Review Petition No.451/2023 which came to be dismissed on 15.09.2025. Therefore, the applicants/respondents 1 to 3 approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing an SLP.
4. Meanwhile, the EP No.235/2023 arises out of RCP No.59/2014 filed by the applicants/respondents 1 to 3 before the execution court, said to be proceeded with executing the order evicting the petitioner. They have filed objection before the execution court for not to proceed with the execution on the ground that they want to challenge the order of this Court before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. But, the same came to be dismissed. Hence, against that order, the petitioner filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and this Court (in-charge) vide order dated 19.09.2025 stayed the execution proceedings in E.P.No.235/2023 on the file of Principal Munsiff Court, Ernakulam.
5. The applicants/respondents 1 to 3 on receipt of the notice, filed this I.A. for vacating the interim order mainly contending that they have obtained the orders against the petitioner for eviction, even the petitioner challenge the same before this Court and suffered the order and Review Petition also filed which came to be dismissed. Such being the case, the only option to the petitioner is to approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court for getting the stay on the execution operation of the order passed by the trial court as well as the Division Bench of this Court. But, this Court has granted stay of the execution proceedings in E.P No.235/2023, wherein the order passed by the trial Court is not illegal or error in order to challenge the same before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India .Therefore, prayed for vacating the interim order.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has seriously contended that though the petitioner suffered the orders before the Division Bench of this Court, the order of review was passed on 15.09.2025, later he has obtained the order copy and filed the SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 27.09.2025. Meanwhile, the execution court proceeded to evict the petitioner. Therefore, the matter coming before the Supreme Court, the execution proceedings shall be deferred. But, the same was not deferred. Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court wherein he said to be running the business for the last 70 years. Therefore, until the matter coming before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court already passed the order of staying the execution that should be continued alteast until 17.10.2025. Hence, prayed for allowing the original petition.
7. Having heard the arguments and perused the records. The points that arises for considera
