IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2010 / 19TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 17482 of 2010(O) -------------------------- EA.93/2010 IN EP.43/2009 IN OS.189/1999 of MUNSIFF COURT,PARAPPANANGADI .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- ABDUL NAZER, S/O.MATHILANCHERI MOIDEEN, THENZHIPALAM AMSOM DESOM, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JAMSHEED HAFIZ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. MATHILANCHERI SUHARABI K.ANTONY D/O.MOIDEEN, W/O.SAIDALAVI, PUTHOORMADAM, PALLIKKUNNU AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 2. NAFEESA, D/O.MANGATTUCHILI JAMALUDHEEN PUTHOORMADAM, PALLIKKUNNU AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 3. BEERANKUTTY, S/O.THRIKKANNUR PULATHOTTATHIL MUHAMMED, THENZHIPALAM AMSOM DESOM, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.17482 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of June, 2010. JUDGMENT Respondent No.2 in E.P.No.43 of 2009 of the court of learned Munsiff, Parappanangadi is the petitioner before me. In a suit for partition Ext.P2, final decree was passed on 10.06.2008 and in January, 2010, petitioner preferred an appeal with an application to condone the delay. Ext.P3 is the memorandum of appeal. Since the appeal was presented with delay, petitioner could not obtain a stay of execution of the final decree and hence petitioner moved Ext.P4, application for stay in the executing court. But that application was dismissed vide Ext.P5, order holding that it is not maintainable. Petitioner challenges Ext.P5, order in this Writ Petition. Learned counsel in fairness has conceded that petitioner has not preferred any objection to the report of Advocate Commissioner based on which final decree is passed. It is seen that final decree was passed on 10.06.2008 and challenge to the final decree in the form of appeal came only in January, 2010. Suit for partition was instituted in the year 1999. Petitioner continuous to be in possession of the property inspite of final decree. In these circumstances I do not find reason to interfere with Ext.P5, WP(C) No.17482/2010 2 order. If at all the property is delivered and challenge of petitioner to the final decree succeeds there are ample provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure which enabled petitioner to apply for and obtain re-delivery of the property. Writ Petition is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks