ROSILY Vs. ANTONY POOCHATHARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the claim petitioner in E.P. No. 30 of 2009 in O.S. No. 92 of 2007 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Kochi. Respondent obtained an exparte decree for specific performance of an agreement for sale said to be entered with the husband of petitioner and pursuant to that decree filed E.P. No. 30 of 2009 to evict petitioner and her husband from the decree schedule property and the building situated thereon after demolishing it. At that stage petitioner filed Ext.P6, claim petition (E.A. No. 146 of 2010). As per her claim building in the decree schedule property belongs to her, she having constructed the same with the funds given to her by her father and herself having obtained permit from the local authority for construction of the building. Certain documents are produced along with the claim petition. In the claim petition petitioner prayed that execution proceedings be stayed until disposal of the claim petition. But the claim petition now stands posted on 07.09.2010. In the meantime, executing court on 30.08.2010 ordered delivery of the property to the respondent within five days. Petitioner apprehends that even before Ext.P6 is adjudicated executing court might effect delivery of property and oust petitioner from the building where she is residing. Petitioner seeks a stay of execution proceedings until Ext.P6, claim petition is disposed of. Learned Counsel states that disregarding the request for stay, Ext.P6 has been posted on 07.09.2010.

(2.) I am not going into the merit of the claim made vide Ext.P6. That is a matter which the executing court has to consider and pass appropriate orders. Since claim petition is pending it is only appropriate that it is disposed of before delivery is effected. Hence learned Sub Judge is directed to dispose of Ext.P6, application before effecting delivery of the property.