IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 37695 of 2009(O)
1. LATHA, AGED 36,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THRESSIAMMA,
... Respondent
2. NEENA, D/O.KURUVILA, DO. DO.
3. NIPSI, S/O.KURUVILA, DO. DO.
4. NIMMI, D/O.KURUVILA, DO. DO.
5. SHANMUGHAN CHETTIAR,
6. GIRIJA, W/O.SHANMUGHAN CHETTIAR,
7. HARIDAS C.K., HARINIVAS,
8. PUSHPAVATHY, HARINIVAS,
9. BABY, C/O.HARIDAS,
10. RAMA, W/O.HARIDAS,
For Petitioner :SRI.MANSOOR ALI K.A
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :04/01/2010
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
-----------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.37695 of 2009 - O
---------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of January, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
“i) To issue a direction to the Sub Court, North
Paravur to consider and dispose I.A.No.4249/2009 and
I.A.No.4260/2009 in O.S.No.232/2000 filed by the
petitioner as early as possible within a time limit.
ii) To issue a direction to the Sub Court, North
Paravur to keep in abeyance all the further execution
proceedings in E.P.No.127/2009 in O.S.No.232/2000 till
Exts.P1 and P2 are considered.”
2. Petitioner is the 7th defendant in O.S.No.232 of 2000
on the file of the Sub Court, North Paravur. Suit is one for
partition. After passing of the final decree, execution proceedings
are now in progress. Petitioner/7th defendant who was set
exparte during the trial of the case has now moved an application
for setting aside the decree passed against her as exparte.
Pending consideration of his application the execution be kept in
abeyance is the grievance espoused in the writ petition invoking
the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article
227 of the Constitution of India.
W.P.(C).No.37695 of 2009 – O
2
3. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. Having regard
to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and
circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondent is
necessary and it is dispensed with.
4. Whatever be the ground available to the petitioner to
seek for setting aside the decree passed against her exparte, I
find the writ jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked for
staying the execution of a decree rendered by the court after a
full fledged trial. She had notice of the proceedings and in fact
after appearance before the court petitioner was declared
exparte. By filing a writ petition, petitioner now seeks to delay
the execution of the decree granted in favour of the decree
holder. I find no merit in the writ petition and it is dismissed.
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,
JUDGE.
bkn/-