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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 17596

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
RAJAM M – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 8147 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: R.ANANTHAPADMANABAN, PAUL BABY
For the Respondents: SMT. VIDYA KURIAKOSE

Writ Petitions under Article 226 cannot be used to execute civil court decrees directly.

Headnote:This Writ Petition seeks to issue directives for the demolition of illegal constructions and damages caused by respondents while claiming protection under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court, considering the nature of the claims, opines that such reliefs must be sought in the jurisdictional execution court. Consequently, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

Table of Content
1. the petition outlines requests for demolitions and protections. (Para 1)
2. the court asserts the writ petition is not the correct forum for execution. (Para 2)

JUDGMENT

The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:

"(i) issue a direction to the 1st and 2nd respondents to act forthwith and take appropriate and necessary action to demolish the illegal construction done by the 3rd and 4th respondents by issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction;

(ii) Declare that the 1st and 2nd respondents are duty-bound to act on the representation submitted by the petitioner and to protect the life and property of the petitioner and her family.

(iii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to construct the retaining wall forthwith to avoid the danger posed to the petitioner and her family.

(iv) Direct the 3rd and 4th respondents to put back the building of the petitioner to safe and normal condition which is damaged due to the illegal act done by the respondents with the support of the 3rd and 4th respondents.

(v) To direct the 1st respondent to prosecute the respondents 3 and 4 as per Rule 18 (4) of KMB Rules.

(vi) To dispense with the translation of exhibits in the vernacular. And (vii) grant such other and further reliefs as deemed by this Hon'ble Court fit and proper to grant in the facts and circumstances of this case."

[SIC]

2. From a perusal of the prayers in this Writ Petition, it is clear that the petitioner wants to execute a Civil court decree by filing a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I am of the considered opinion that, such a Writ Petition cannot be entertained. All the contentions raised by the pettioner are left open, and the petitioner is free to agitate the same before the jurisdictional execution court. If there is any urgency to the petitioner, the petitioner is free to file appropriate application before the execution court, and the execution court will do the needful in accordance with the law.

With the above osbervation, this Writ Petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

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 Back to top