IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 32749 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN EA.324/2009 IN EP.78/2008 of SUB COURT, OTTAPPALAM .................... PETITIONER: --------------- P.GOPALAN, S/O.PALANISWAMI CHETTIAR VANIYAMKULAM ANGADI, VANIYAMKULAM POST OTTAPPALAM, TALUK, PALAKKAD DIST. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. P.VIJAYAKUMAR, S/O.MADHAVAN PARAKKOTTIL HOUSE, VANIYAMKULAM POST OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DIST. 2. THE MANAGER OTTAPPALAM CO-OP URBAN BANK LTD NO.F 16 OTTAPPALAM POST,, OTTAPPALAM TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.32749 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 16th November, 2009 JUDGMENT The Writ Petition is filed seeking mainly the following relief: “To direct the Sub Court to extent the execution proceedings until disposal of the case before the Supreme Court.” 2. Petitioner is a defaulter against the second respondent- Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd. In execution of the arbitration award passed in favour of the bank, property of the petitioner was brought to sale negativing the objections challenging the executability of the award by the petitioner/judgment debtor. Pendency of a Special Leave Petition challenging the executability of the award, which had been repelled by the execution court and also this court, was canvassed for keeping in abeyance the delivery of the property sold in execution. The execution court has granted 45 days time to the petitioner on his application to produce order, if any, for avoiding delivery. After the expiry of the period so extended by the execution court, the writ petition has been filed to keep in abeyance further proceedings till disposal of the Special Leave Petition before the apex court. W.P.C.No.32749/09 - 2 - 3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made, I find no notice to the respondents is necessary and it is dispensed with. Petitioner has no case that leave has been granted by the apex court. In the previous writ petition filed by him numbered as W.P.(C) No.17728 of 2009 taking note of the decision rendered by the apex court in Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala (AIR 2000 S.C. 2587) it has been held that in the absence of leave granted for entertaining his Special Leave Petition, no direction can be issued preventing the auction purchaser from getting delivery of the property after issue of the sale certificate in his favour. The execution court has already extended sufficient time to the petitioner vide P3 order. There is no merit in the writ petition, and it is dismissed. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE