JOY KURIAKOSE Vs. T C MANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner instituted O.S.No.236 of 2014 in the Munsiff 's Court, Perumbavoor against one Vijayan Pillai. In the suit, the plaintiff pointed out that he was one of the co -owners alone with two other persons of the same business premises. The defendant Sri.Vijayan Pillai was stated to be a close friend and it is alleged that in the B schedule property which contained a building, Mr.Vijayan Pillai was running a business. It is alleged in the plaint that B schedule property which was occupied by Sri. Vijayan Pillai lies on the eastern side of A schedule property. Since the plaint B schedule property did not have direct access from the road, permission was sought by Sri.Vijayan Pillai to make use of plaint A schedule property for parking facility. Consent was given. Due to the policy accepted by the State Government, Sri.Vijayan Pillai could not run the bar. W hen the plaintiff came to know that said Vijayan Pillai is trying to transfer his right in the business to another person, the plaintiff issued notice to Sri. Vijayan Pillai requiring him revoking the consent given for parking facility. Since Sri.Vijayan Pillai was not amenable to give up the right in respect of the premises, the suit was laid.

(2.) VIJAYAN Pillai had entered appearance and the records indicate that the parties entered into a compromise which is evidenced by Ext.P1. Since the judgment debtor in O.S.No.236 of 2014 violated the injunction decree, the petitioner filed E.P. No.84 of 2014 on 15.11.2014 against the third respondent in this proceeding. E.P.No.84 of 2014 was filed under Order XXI Rule 32 of CPC and relief was sought for only against the third respondent. W hile so, the first and the second respondent moved the execution court by E.A.233 of 2014 invoking the provision under Order XXI Rule 99 of CPC claiming to have their right, title, interest and possession over plaint A schedule property in the suit adjudicated. To the said petition filed by respondents 1 and 2, the petitioner herein filed Ext.P4 objection. Even though, in the objection filed by the petitioner, he questioned the maintainability of Ext.P3 petition, while that was pending, the court posted the case for pre - trial steps and held that evidence needs to be adduced in the case. On 1.12.2014, respondents 1 and 2 filed three more applications, one of which is EA 246 of 2014. The relief sought for in E.A.No.246 of 2014 was an order from the execution court to open the gate kept locked by the petitioner so as to facilitate entry of respondents 1 and 2 into 'A' schedule property in the suit and that prayer was granted.

(3.) THE said order is under challenge.