SAINABA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The decree-holder in O.S. No. 433 of 2001 on the file of the Munsiffs Court, Palakkad is the petitioner. The suit was for a mandatory injunction. in the decree, the second respondent has been directed to renew the license issued to the petitioner to conduct a juice shop, as per the orders of the Government from time to time subject to the revision of the rent as per the norms prescribed by the Government with effect from the date of the last renewal. According to the petitioner, she was forced to remit a total sum of '1,05,120 as she was threatened by the respondents that in case the amount was not remitted, they would cancel the licence. According to the petitioner, actually there was excess payment which had to be adjusted towards future rent. Thus, the petitioner filed E.P. before the court below for violation of decree and also for the implementation of the decree.

(2.) The execution petition was resisted by the respondents contending that it was the petitioner who had committed default in making prompt payments and huge amount was outstanding in arrears from her. According to them, unless the petitioner paid the rent correctly, she would not be entitled to get the fruits of the decree.

(3.) After enquiry, the execution court held as follows: