IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 33159 of 2008(V)
1. BABY SEEMON,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. RADHAMANIAMMA
... Respondent
2. K.SAHADEVAN NAIR
For Petitioner :SRI.MATHEW PHILIP EDAPPALLIL
For Respondent :SRI.M.NARENDRA KUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :13/01/2010
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
-------------------------------
W.P.(C).NO.33159 OF 2008 ()
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of January, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is the judgment debtor in E.A.No.90 of 2008 in
E.P.No.38 of 2008 in O.S.No.45 of 2005 on the file of the
Munsiff Court, Kanjirappally. Decree being executed in the
above suit is one passed in a suit for mandatory injunction
directing the petitioner/judgment debtor to vacate from the
decree schedule property. Respondents are the decree
holders. Decree was passed ex parte since the petitioner
failed to appear and contest the suit. In the execution
proceedings, petitioner/judgment debtor moved an application
for stay of the proceedings contending that his application for
purchasing of kudikidappu over the shed situate in the decree
schedule property is pending consideration before the Land
Tribunal, Kottayam. The learned Munsiff, after hearing
both sides, dismissed that application for stay of the
proceedings. Ext.P8 is the copy of that order. Propriety and
WPC.33159/2008 2
correctness of that order is challenged in the writ petition
invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. I heard the counsel on both sides. At the time of
hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
petitioner has filed an appeal against the ex parte decree with
a petition to condone delay before the District Court,
Kottayam and till disposal of that petition, it is prayed that the
execution proceedings be stayed. It is submitted that the
above appeal has been filed with a petition to condone delay of
more than 1000 days. Having regard to the submissions made
and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I
find no indulgence can be extended to the petitioner/judgment
debtor for the reason that he has preferred appeal against the
ex parte decree with a condonation petition and that is
pending consideration before the court. It is open to him to
invite the attention of the court where such appeal is pending
for an early disposal, provided, service is complete. If any
such request is made by the petitioner, the court before which
WPC.33159/2008 3
the appeal is pending, shall expeditiously consider the merit of
the petition filed to condone the delay for preferring the
appeal, and if so condoned, then pass appropriate orders for
disposing the appeal as well after hearing both sides.
Whatever that be, the request made for stay of the execution
of the decree on the grounds canvassed cannot be entertained.
I do not find any merit in the writ petition, and it is dismissed.
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
JUDGE
prp