Execution petition - Delivery order issued by the court - without specific order the property was also measured and boundaries fixed - Explanation sought from the Presiding Officer and from the concerned official . [Krishnan Padmanabhan vs Anna. CRP.No. 2402 of 2000. M.R.Hariharan Nair (J)]
Decree granted consists of two parts, which are divisible and not at all inter-dependent /. Petitioner can very will maintain an execution petition with regard to that part of the decree. Left open to the petitioner to file appropriate petition before the execution court limiting his prayer for enforcement of prohibitory part of the injunction already granted. [M.J.Simon vs Special Grade Panchayat. 2001(1) KLJ 146. M.R.Hariharan Nair (J)]
Or. 21, R.101 -- The scope of
the enquiry is very wide to embrace any kind of dispute between the parties and
is a substitute for a suit--- Executing court disposed of the matter without
examining witnesses and marking documents - This has resulted in miscarriage of
justice. All questions relating to title or interest in the property shall be
determined by the execution court. [Ayyappan Pillai
& ors. Vs. Raveendranathan 1999(1) KLT 484 = 1999(1) KLJ 188 (S. Krishnan
Unni (J)].
Sec.60 - Revenue Recovery by K.S.F. Enterprises on the basis of agreement executed - Provision not applicable so as to claim benefits Art.102 - Revenue Recovery by Kerala State Financial Enterprises on the basis of agreement executed by parties - the benefit under this provision not applicable. [K.Sukumaran Vs. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation and others, 2002 (2) KLJ 134.. Cyriac Joseph & K.Thankappan (JJ)]
Suit for specific performance - Defendant set exparte - Affidavit filed - suit decreed - Subsequent contention in EP that decree passed on the basis of affidavit is not executable at it is null and void ab initio will not stand - Remedy of the party, if aggrieved by the decree is to file appeal - Trial court finding on the basis of documents and affidavit is valid - In the execution proceeding JD cannot be heard to contend that the decree is not executable since the decree is passed on wrong appreciation of evidence or insufficient evidence . [ P.J.Thomas vs Tony Mathew. 2001 (2) KLT 724 = 2001 (2) KLJ 329 = ILR 2001 (3) Ker.354. K.A.Mohammed Shafi (J)]
Order 21 Rule 58(5) - Suit filed under Sec.6 of the Specific Relief Act - Finding in a proceeding based on an order on Order 21 Rule 58(2) petition operates as a decree with regard to aspect of title as also possessory interest claimed - Clause (5) does not give any right to file fresh suit to the person against whom the claim is upheld. As far as such person is concerned , his right, under sub rule (4) is only by way of appeal. [Benny vs Anto Paul . 2001 (1) KLJ 617 . M.R.Hariharan Nair (J)]
Kerala Civil Rules of Practice - Rule 234 (3) -Partition suit - Building which cannot be sold is auctioned among bidders - Highest bidder need deposit only the balance amount and ask the execution of sale deed in respect of that property alone . [Santosh Kumar vs. Indira Mohandas. 2001 (3) KLT 389 = 2001 (2) KLJ 512. Dated 3rd August, 2001. K.A.Mohammed Shafi (J)]