IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 18410 of 2010(O)
1. SNDP BRANCH NO.2682 PONNURUNNI WEST
... Petitioner
Vs
1. V.K.AJITHA KUMARY,
... Respondent
2. B.SURENDRAN,
3. P.RAVEENDRAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :14/06/2010
O R D E R
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
--------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.18410 of 2010
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of June, 2010.
JUDGMENT
Judgment debtor No.3 in E.P.No.335 of 2009 in O.S.No.1482 of 2006 of
the court of learned Munsiff, Ernakulam is the petitioner before me seeking stay
of execution of decree until Exts.P5, P6 and P8, applications for setting aside
the exparte decree, condonation of delay of 1093 days and for stay of execution
of exparte decree are disposed of by the learned Munsiff. Respondent No.1 filed
a suit for recovery of Rs.50,000/- from petitioner and respondent Nos.2 and 3.
There was an exparte decree in favour of respondent No.1. With 1093 days
delay petitioner filed applications to set aside the exparte decree and to stay
execution of that decree. According to the petitioner respondent No.1 is
avoiding notice on the said applications but she is vigourously prosecuting the
execution petition where executing court has ordered attachment of immovable
properties of petitioner. Learned counsel submits that application for attachment
of immovable property of petitioner is pending consideration of the executing
court of this day. It is also pointed out by learned counsel that in similar cases
where petitioner had opportunity to contest, petitioner was found not liable to pay
the amount allegedly received by respondent Nos.2 and 3.
2. As it is, there is a decree though exparte in favour of respondent
No.1 which binds petitioner. Until that decree is set aside it remains in force
WP(C) No.18410/2010
2
and is executable. Having regard to the circumstances of the case I do not
consider it necessary or proper to stay execution of the decree as prayed for. It
is open to the petitioner to show cause against attachment of its property and if
petitioner is so advised, it can also avoid attachment by furnishing security as
provided by law. Even when the attachment is effected be it in execution
petitioner can furnish security and request for lifting of attachment of the
property (see Sidharthan v. Praveen Chandran (2008 (1) KLT 136).
In that situation there is no reason why this Court shall stay execution of the
decree. However I direct the learned Munsiff to expedite disposal of Exts.P5, P6
and P8, applications pending consideration in O.S.No.1482 of 2006. Learned
Munsiff shall make every endeavour to dispose of the said applications at the
earliest.
Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH,
Judge.
cks