IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 27TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 4928 of 2010(O) ------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. SHEEJA ANZAR,W/O.ANZAR,KARUMBALIL VEEDU, KARPOORAM CHERRY,VADAKKEVILA VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 2. ANZAR, -DO- -DO- 3. MUHAMMED RAFI, -DO- -DO- 4. NAVAS KHAN, PULI VEEDU,VADAKKEVILA VILLAGE,KOLLAM. BY ADV. MR.TOM K.THOMAS. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- * K.SATHYANANDAN,SUVARNALAYAM VEEDU, ASRAMAM,KOLLAM. *(CORRECTED) *THE NAME OF THE RESPONDENT IS CORRECTED AS `SUVARNA SATHYAN, W/O.` K. SATHYANANDAN' INSTEAD OF K.SATHYANANDAN VIDE ORDER DATED 16/02/2010 IN I.A. NO.2204/2010. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/02/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C). No. 4928 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 16th day of February, 2010. JUDGMENT In this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks stay of further proceedings in E.P.102 of 2008 in O.S. 274 of 2005 on the file of the Sub court, Kollam till the disposal of Exts.P1, P2 and P3 applications. 2. The petitioners are the defendants in O.S. 274 of 2005 on the file of the Sub Court, Kollam. According to the petitioners, the plaintiff is a money lender and the suit is one for realization of money. The plaint claim was for Rs. Two Lakhs with interest. The suit is based on a cheque and a promissory note. According to the petitioners, who are the defendants in the suit, those documents were concocted documents. Whatever that be, it is seen that the suit was decreed ex-parte. According to the petitioners, they were unaware of the WPC. 4928/2010. 2 posting of the suit and therefore they were not present on the day. They came to know about the decree only when execution proceedings were taken by the decree holder. 3. It is stated that there was a talk of compromise and it was agreed by the plaintiff that towards the decree amount a sum of Rs. One Lakh alone need be paid and he will not proceed with the matter. 4. In the meanwhile, the petitioners filed I.A.223 of 2010 to have the ex-parte decree set aside. Copy of the petition is produced as Ext.P1. Since there was delay in filing the said petition, I.A.224 of 2010 was filed to have the delay condoned. Petitioners have also filed I.A.559 of 2010 seeking stay of execution of the decree since hasty steps were taken to execute the decree. 5. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the entire amount has been paid and prays that there may be a direction to the court below to dispose of the interlocutory applications at the earliest. WPC. 4928/2010. 3 In the light of fact that the entire decree amount has been paid, it is only just and proper to direct the court below to consider the applications filed by the petitioners forthwith. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the court below to consider and dispose of Exts.P1, P2 and P3 interlocutory applications filed by the petitioners as expeditiously as possible , at any rate, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.