IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 15TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 24TH KARTHIKA 1933 OP(C).No. 3675 of 2011(O) ------------------------- AS.16/2011 of DISTRICT COURT,TRIVANDRUM OS.153/2001 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ATTINGAL .................... PETITIONER: ---------------------- REMYA @ MALOOTTY, D/O. LATE V.VENU, MAKAYIRAM, KILIKOLLOOR, KAIRALI NAGAR, KALLUMTHAZHAM P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUJESH KUMAR RESPONDENT: --------------- DEVADASAN, S/O. NANU, AJITHA SADANAM, PALAYAMKUNNU P.O., CHEMMARUTHI, CHIRAYINKEEZHU-695304 THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(C).No. 3675 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S.NO.153/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB JUDGE, ATTINGAL DATED 29/03/2007. EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE IN O.S.NO.153/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB JUDGE, ATTINGAL DATED 29/03/2007. EXHIBIT P3- TRUE COPY OF THE ATTACHMENT APPLICATION FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF IN O.S.NO.153/2002, DATED 30/11/2002. EXHIBIT P4- TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.4932/1996 OF VARKALA SUB REGISTRY OFFICE, DATED 17/12/1996. EXHIBIT P5- TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM IN A.S.NO.16/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT COURT, DATED NIL. EXHIBIT P6- TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.74/2011 IN A.S.NO.16/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXHIBIT P7- TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN A.S.NO.16/2011. EXHIBIT P8- TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF ORIGINAL PETITION (CIVIL)NO. 397/2011 WITHOUT ANNEXURES DATED 27/01/2011. EXHIBIT P9- TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.2327/2011 IN I.A.NO.74/2011 IN A.S.NO.16/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, DATED 8/11/2011. EXHIBIT P10- TRUE COPY OF EA.NO. /2011 IN E.P.NO.73/2007 IN O.S.NO.153/2002 ON THE FILES OF THE SUB COURT, ATTINGAL DATED 10/11/2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL /True Copy/ P.A to Judge THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P(C).No.3675 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 15th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Respondent obtained a money decree against petitioner and others in O.S.No.153 of 2002 of the Court of learned Sub Judge, Attingal. The claim was for recovery of amount said to be borrowed by the father of petitioner who was by then no more. Petitioner, I am told was represented in the suit by a Court guardian. A decree was passed for recovery of money. In the suit, two items of properties were attached. According to the petitioner, item No.2 belonged to the mother of petitioner and even as per the decree, liability of petitioner and other defendants was only to the extent of property they inherited from the deceased father of petitioner. In execution of the decree properties were purchased by the respondent/decree holder and the sale was confirmed. Now, the properties are going to be delivered to the respondent. In the meantime, petitioner filed appeal against judgment and decree with an application to condone the delay and that appeal and application to condone the appeal were dismissed for default. Another application was filed for restoration of the appeal and the application to condone the O.P(C).No.3675 of 2011 -: 2 :- delay, again with another application to condone the delay. Though, petitioner filed an application for stay in the executing court against delivery of property, no order is passed on the said application, it is submitted. 2. It would appear from the submission of learned counsel that petitioner or other defendants did not file any application in the executing court to set aside the sale on any ground whatsoever. Moreover, I also stated about the appeal being presented with application to condone the delay and the same being dismissed. Now what is pending is an application to restore the application dismissed for default. There also, delay is involved. In the above circumstance, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. In case the appeal is ultimately allowed in favour of petitioner, it is open to him to seek appropriate remedy as provided under law. With the above observation this original petition is closed. (THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-