High Court Kerala High Court

Sarfudheen vs K.Muraleedharan on 31 March, 2010

Kerala High Court
Sarfudheen vs K.Muraleedharan on 31 March, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 11025 of 2010(O)


1. SARFUDHEEN, S/O.HANEEFA RAWTHER,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. K.MURALEEDHARAN, S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY,
                       ...       Respondent

2. SIVADASAN, S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN

 Dated :31/03/2010

 O R D E R

P.BHAVADASAN, J.

—————————————
WP(C) No.11025 of 2010-O

—————————————

Dated 31st March 2010

Judgment

In this Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India, the following relief is sought for :

“a) Issue a writ commanding the District Court, Palakkad to

defer the hearing of the appeal in AS No.23/09 till the

disposal of OS No.97/10 on the file of the Munsiff’s Court,

Chittur.”

2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in OS No.97/10 on

the file of the Munsiff’s Court, Chittur. The suit was one for

mandatory injunction and other reliefs. A copy of the plaint is

produced as Ext.P1. It is stated that the fourth respondent in

the suit by employing the first respondent herein had preferred

OS No.98/06 before the Sub Court, Palakkad for realising a

sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the petitioner. The case of the first

respondent herein was that on 25.12.2004, an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- was borrowed by the petitioner and a promissory

note was jointly executed with an undertaking that the amount

will be repaid with 12% interest. Since the amount was not

WPC 11025/10 2

repaid, the suit was laid. The court below decreed the suit

directing the petitioner herein to pay an amount of

Rs,1,14,235/- to the first respondent. The aggrieved petitioner

preferred an appeal as AS No.23/09 before the District Court,

Palakkad. The petitioner submits that if he succeeds in Ext.P1

suit filed by him and a mandatory injunction is ordered, it will be

a clinching evidence to establish that the promissory note relied

on by the first respondent was a forged one. Therefore, the

petitioner prays for the above relief.

3. The petitioner has not pointed out any statutory

provision which enables this Court to stay the proceedings in

the appeal. The petitioner may approach the Appellate Court

for the said relief. Reserving his liberty to move the appellate

Court, this Writ Petition is disposed of.





                                    P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE



sta

WPC 11025/10    3

WPC 11025/10    4