IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 2ND AUGUST 2011 / 11TH SRAVANA 1933 OP(C).No. 2496 of 2011(O) ------------------------- E.A.NO.65/2011 IN E.P.50/2010 IN OS.242/2007 of MUNSIFF'S COURT,HARIPPAD .................... PETITIONER: -------------------- MADANESWARAN, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.KUTTAPPAN, KUTTIYIL VEETTIL, KUTTAMPEROOR MURI, MANNAR VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.N.ASHOK KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. K.P.DINESAN, S/O.PARAMESWARAN, KOYIKKAL VEETTIL, NANGIARKULANGARA MURI, PALLIPPAD VILLAGE, HARIPPAD PIN - 690 512. 2. DEEPA SAJEEV, W/O.K.K.SAJEEV, KADACKAL PEEDIKAYIL VEETTIL, PENNUKKARA MURI, PENNUKKARA P.O., ALA VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK, PIN - 689 520. 3. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION, PANAMPALLY NAGAR, PANAMPALLY AVENUE, KOCHI - 682 036. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss OPC.NO.2496/2011 O APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF SALE AGREEMENT DTD. 14/10/2010 BETWEEN PETITIONER AND 2ND RESPONDENT. P2: COPY OF FIRST PAGE OF RC BOOK OF VEHICLE KL-4/P 6868. P3: COPY OF PETITION IN E.P.NO.50/2010 IN O.S.242/2007 FILED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. P4: COPY OF STAY ORDER DTD. 22/06/2011 IN I.A.NO.913/10 IN A.S.157/10 OF ADDL.DISTRICT COURT I, MAVELIKKARA. P5: COPY OF CLAIM PETITION AS E.A.65/2011 IN E.P.50/10 IN O.S.242/07 OF M.C.HARIPPAD. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P(C).No.2496 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 02nd day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Third respondent appears through counsel. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved since his claim petition (Ext.P5) has not been disposed of for the reason that appellate court has passed Ext.P4, order on June 22, 2011 staying execution of the decree under challenge in that appeal. 3. Plaintiff obtained a decree in O.S.No242 of 2007 of the Court of learned Munsiff, Harippad against three defendants for recovery of money. Of them the third defendant filed A.S.No.157 of 2010 before learned Additional District Judge-I, Mavelikkara and has obtained Ext.P4, order staying execution of the decree as above stated. In the meantime the vehicle allegedly belonging to the second respondent was seized by the Amin as per the order of the executing court. Petitioner filed Ext.P5, petition claiming that he is a bonafide purchaser of that vehicle without notice of the execution proceeding. Grievance of petitioner is that no order is passed on Ext.P5, petition in view of Ext.P4, order of appellate court staying execution proceeding. O.P(C).No.2496 of 2011 -: 2 :- 4. Plaintiff in the suit had approached this Court with a similar grievance that though appeal was preferred only by the third defendant, execution of the decree even as against defendants 1 and 2 is stayed by the learned Additional District Judge. Plaintiff was directed to approach the appellate court for necessary clarification. 5. Since the appellate court has passed Ext.P4, order it is for that Court to make necessary clarification if any in the matter. Hence it is open to the petitioners to request the appellate court for necessary clarification if he is otherwise entitled to that course. With the above observation this original petition is closed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-