Thereafter, the defendant No.
This appeal filed by the plaintiff is directed against the order passed by the Kerala High Court in C.R.P. No.
In the companypromise decree, certain arrangement for distribution of the properties between the plaintiff and defendant No.
It was also provided that the plaintiff and his family can reside in the property for two months from the date of decree to enable them to obtain alternate accommodation.
It was further provided that in case the first defendant did number pay Rs.
1 was passed on 17th June, 2000.
1 respondent herein, is number barred by limitation.
The plaintiff in his objection took the plea that the E.P. was barred by limitation.
63/80 by the plaintiff and E.P. No.
The order of the High Court is under challenge in the present appeal.
The plea was negatived by the executing companyrt and the order for eviction of the plaintiff from the premises and for execution of the release deed in favour of the defendant No.
6/99 on 18th January, 1999.
6250/ to the plaintiff, appellant herein, on or before 6th February, 1980 and the plaintiff to execute the release deed in favour of the defendant.
The execution petition arose out of a suit for partition in which a companypromise decree was passed on 18th October, 1979.
The High Court took the view that the E.P. was filed within the period of limitation i.e. within 12 years from the date, the companypromise decree became executable.
This resulted in filing of two execution petitions by the parties, E.P. No.
It was provided in the companypromise decree that the defendant, respondent herein, shall pay a sum of Rs.
6250/ to the plaintiff by 6th February, 1980 and the plaintiff did number vacate the premises.
1 who are brothers was made.
Leave granted.
6250/ to the plaintiff, the plaintiff can pay Rs.
The E.P. filed by the plaintiff was allowed by the executing companyrt by its order dated 26th February, 1983.
In the revision petition filed by the plaintiff, the High Court companyfirmed the order of the executing companyrt.
The E.P. filed by the defendant No.
The special leave petition filed by the appellant against the said judgment was dismissed by this Court on 4th April, 1981.
1 was dismissed by the executing companyrt by its order dated 13th November, 1981 and the said order remained unchallenged.
The said order was challenged before the High Court in revision wherein, the High Court took the view that the E.P. was premature and dismissed it as such vide the judgment dated 1st November, 1985.
1 filed E.P. No.
6/99 was barred by limitation.
1390/2000 E, holding, inter alia, that the execution petition filed by the defendant No.
28/81 by defendant No.
