C.K Ravindran vs C.K. Janaki Amma And Ors

The judgment debtor in E.P.No.234/2019 in FDIA No.2784/2004 in O.S.No.78/2002 on the file of Additional Sub Court, Thalassery, seeks to set aside Ext.P4.

I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the first respondent.

There is no valid reason to interfere with Ext.P4. All contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner were dealt with in Ext.P3 judgment in R.F.A.No.467/2019. While dismissing R.F.A.No.467/2019, this Court allowed six months time to the petitioner to vacate from the premises. That period is over by the end of January,2021.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that some more time may be granted to the petitioner taking pity on his existing state of affairs.

The learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that, in fact, the petitioner is not in occupation of the premises and he is not residing in the house at all.

The petitioner being a senior citizen having completed 66 years and taking pity on his condition, I permit the petitioner to continue in the premises till 31.03.2021. He shall vacate the property on the next day without any default.

In the result, this original petition is dismissed. The petitioner shall vacate the decree scheduled premises unconditionally on expiry of 31.03.2021. In case he does not vacate, the execution court will be at liberty to take necessary legal steps for delivery of property.

All pending interlocutory applications will stand closed.