IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 19960 of 2009(O)
1. MURALEEDHARAN NAIR,S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR,
... Petitioner
2. AMBIKAMMA,W/O.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR,
Vs
1. SARAMMA KOSHI,W/O.KOSHI,AGED 62,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.R.SUNIL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :15/07/2009
O R D E R
S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No. 19960 OF 2009 O
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 15th day of July, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-
“(i) Call for the records pertaining to
EP.No.19/07 in OS.No.8/04 of the Sub Court,
Mavelikkara and to quash Ext.P1.
(ii) Direct the Sub Court Mavelikkara to
keep the execution proceedings i EP.No.19/07
in abeyance till the final orders in Exts.P3 and
P4.”
2. Petitioners are the judgment debtors in E.P.No.19/07 in
OS.No.8/04 on the file of the Sub Court, Mavelikkara. The above
suit was one for specific performance, which was decreed exparte.
Respondent is the plaintiff/ decree holder. The judgment debtors
have moved an application for setting aside the exparte decree
with a petition to condone delay for a period of 1876 days and it is
pending enquiry, is canvassed for invoking the supervisory
jurisdiction vested with this court to stay the execution proceedings
taken by the decree holder to execute the decree. Perusing the
WPC.19960/09
: 2 :
order passed by the execution court dated 23.6.2009, copy of
which is produced as Ext.P1 in the writ petition, it is seen that the
petitioners/ judgment debtors had moved an application before the
execution court seeking the very same relief, but, it was found
meritless and dismissed. The order passed by the learned Sub
Judge would show that on a previous occasion the petitioner had
moved a writ petition before this court pursuant to steps taken
when a bank proceeded against him for realising the debt due
from him. It is further disclosed by the order that the decree holder
had paid the entire sum of Rs.5,65,535/- due to the bank, which
was due from the judgment debtors. More interestingly the order
reveals that the petitioner before filing the application for setting
aside the exparte decree, had knowledge of that decree and was
contesting the proceedings in the execution by filing one petition or
another and lastly moving a writ petition before this court also. The
writ petition is devoid of any merit, and it is dismissed.
Sd/-
(S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE)
aks