- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
BEERALI v. SHABU
2026:KER:51124
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2026 / 19TH ASHADHA, 1948
OP(C) NO. 1827 OF 2026
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.02.2026 IN IA No.2/2026 IN OS
NO.17 OF 2023 OF MUNSIFF COURT, TIRUR
PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER/DEFENDANT NO.1:
BEERALI
AGED 73 YEARS
S/O. KUNHIMUHAMMED KUTTY, THIRUNAVAYA KALATHIL
HOUSE, MANGALAM AMSOM, PULLOONI DESOM,
ANNASSERY P.O., TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 676561
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.M.FIROZ
SRI.S.KANNAN
SMT.M.SHAJNA
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF NO.1:
SHABU
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O. BEERALI, THIRUNAVAYA KALATHIL HOUSE,
MANGALAM AMSOM, PULLOONI DESOM, ANNASSERY P.O.,
TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676561
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.07.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
1
EASWARAN S., J
-------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.1827 of 2026 ------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of July, 2026
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is the 1stdefendant in a suit for partition. The petitioner filed Ext.P4 application seeking a direction to the plaintiff to produce the vehicle as directed under Ext.P3 order. The Munsiff Court, Tirur, considered the application and passed Ext.P6 order stating that the application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') is not maintainable and that the petitioner ought to have filed an application under Section 36 of CPC. Accordingly, the application was dismissed. Hence, this present original petition.
2. Heard Shri.K.M.Firoz, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. In the nature of the
2
order this Court proposes to pass, this Court is of the view that notice to the respondent is not required.
3. It is trite law that even misquoting of a wrong provision in an application will not preclude the court from considering the same under the law. What is sought for in Ext.P4 application is for a direction to the respondent to produce the vehicle as ordered in Ext.P3. Ext.P3 order was passed on 19.12.2025. Admittedly, the order is yet to be complied with. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the Munsiff Court, Tirur, erred egregiously in dismissing the application holding that the application is not maintainable because of the wrong quoting of the provisions.
4. This Court finds that the impugned order is per se unsustainable, warranting exercise of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this original petition is allowed. Ext.P6 order is set aside. Consequently, I.A No.2/2026 in O.S
3
No.17/2023 stands restored to the files of the Munsiff Court, Tirur. The Munsiff Court is directed to consider the application and pass appropriate orders within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
EASWARAN S.
JUDGE
AMR
4
APPENDIX OF OP(C) NO. 1827 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF PLAINT IN O.S.NO.17 OF
2023 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF COURT,
TIRUR DATED 19.01.2023
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED
BY THE FIRST DEFENDANT AND THIRD
DEFENDANT IN O.S.NO.17 OF 2023 ON THE
FILES OF MUNSIFF COURT, TIRUR DATED
23.08.2023
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF COMMON ORDER IN
I.A.NO.7 OF 2024 AND I.A.NO.9 OF 2025
IN O.S.NO.17 OF 2023 PASSED BY THE
MUNSIFF COURT, TIRUR DATED 19.12.2025
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.2 OF 2026 IN
O.S.NO.17 OF 2023 ON THE FILES OF
MUNSIFF COURT, TIRUR DATED 10.01.2026
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF COUNTER STATEMENT FILED
IN I.A.NO.2 OF 2026 IN O.S.NO.17 OF
2023 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF COURT,
TIRUR DATED 19.01.2026
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN I.A.NO.2 OF
2026 IN O.S.NO.17 OF 2023 PASSED BY
THE MUNSIFF COURT, TIRUR DATED
05.02.2026
5
Alert