P BHASKARAN Vs. ST MARYS CATHEDRAL BASILICA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed by the defendant in O.S.No.213 of 2003 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Ernakulam. That is a suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for eviction of petitioner from the suit property and for recovery of rent arrears. Petitioner did not contest the suit and an ex parte decree in favour of respondent initially for recorvery of rent arrears which on application of respondent was amended to include a relief of recovery of possession also. At a stage when petitioner was facing eviction as per the amended decree, petitioner approached this court with this writ petition seeking a direction to the learned Sub Judge to issue certified copies of amended judgment and decree and order dated 15-10-2008 on I.A.No.7567 of 2007 and for a direction to the learned Sub Judge to redeliver the shop room which is the subject matter of the suit. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that amemdment carried out to the judgment and decree incorporating relief of recovery of possession is unwarranted and that it is beyond the scope of Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Learned counsel states that key of building situated in the schedule property is in the custody of the court and that petitioner has already moved an application (Ext.P14) for redelivery of building. Learned counsel for respondent contends that there is no substance or merit in the writ petition. According to the learned counsel amendement is carried out as provided under law and that petitioner really has no interest in the suit property as revealed from the objection filed on behalf of petitioner on E.P.No.498 of 2009. Learned counsel reads from the objection to state that petitioner is not in possession of the suit property for several years and that somebody else on behalf of him is said to be conducting business therein.

(2.) IT is not necessary for me to go into the controversy involved as to the issue regarding delivery or correctness of the order amending judgment and decree. A copy of amended judgment and decree is not produced and no relief also is sought against the order. Hence I do not think it necessary to go into that issue. That question is left open to be agitated in appropriate proceedings. Learned counsel on behalf of petitioner sought for a direction to the learned Sub Judge to redeliver shop room to the petitioner. I do not consider it necessary to issue any such direction in this proceeding. Learned Sub Judge is directed to issue certified copy of amended judgment and decree in O.S.No.213 of 2003 and order dated 15-10-2008 on I.A.No.7567 of 2007 in that case at the earliest if it has been applied for as per law and subject to usual terms. Writ petition is disposed of as above.