IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 18TH MAY 2010 / 28TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 15109 of 2010(O) -------------------------- OS.76/2007 of MUNSIFF COURT, HOSDRUG .................... PETITIONER: --------------- T.V.NARAYANAN, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. AYYANKAVU KUNHAMBU, AGRICULTURIST, RESIDING AT MUTHUKANAM, LALOOR, BELOOR VILLAGE, P.O.IRIYA, HOSDURG, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN RESPONDENT: --------------- V.GOPALAN, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. V.AMBU, AGRICULTURIST, RESIDING AT AYYANKAVU, BELOOR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, P.O.PAREKLAI, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.C.No. 15109 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 18th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT The prayer in this writ petition is to declare that Ext.P7, order while Exts.P4 and P5 applications are pending consideration is illegal and irregular and for direction to the learned Munsiff, Hosdurg to pass orders on Exts.P4 and P5 applications within two weeks. The further prayer is to direct the learned Munsiff to pass fresh orders on Ext.P6 only after disposal of Exts.P4 and P5 application. 2. Respondent filed O.S.No.67 of 2007 against petitioner seeking specific performance of an agreement for sale or in the alternative for realisation of the advance money. Petitioner filed written statement and on the side of the respondent, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exts.A1 to A3 were marked. The case was posted for evidence of the petitioner and when he remained absent and his counsel reported no instructions that resulted in petitioner being placed ex parte. He then filed I.A.No.4637 of 2007 to set aside ex parte order which was allowed. Again the case was posted for trial in the list but there was no representation for petitioner, W.P.C.No.15109 of 2010 : 2 : nor was he present. Based on the available evidence learned Munsiff passed a decree for specific performance. For 2 years, 4 months and 21 days petitioner did not move, of course he has a case that he had no notice of the decree. In the meantime the document in respect of the suit property was executed in the name of respondent through court and following that, he filed application under section 28 of the Specific Relief Act (Ext.P6) to get possession of the property. In the meantime, petitioner filed I.A.Nos.823 of 2010 and 824 of 2010 on the trial side to set aside what he called, the ex parte decree and for condonation of delay of 2 years, 4 months and 21 days. Learned Munsiff passed Ext.P7, order on Ext.P6, application . Hence the writ petition. Learned counsel submits that the case is posted on 27-05-2010 for delivery of possession and that I.A.Nos.823 of 2010 and 824 of 2010 are posted on 25-05-2010 for consideration. 3. Concededly, no stay could be obtained by the petitioner from the trial side on filing I.A.Nos.823 of 2010 and 824 of 2010. In the absence of any order of stay the court was justified in issuing Ext.P7, order. So far as there is no jurisdictional error or legal infirmity, that order cannot be challenged. It is open to the petitioner to move the court where I.A.No.823 of 2010 and 824 of W.P.C.No.15109 of 2010 : 3 : 2010 are pending and seek stay of delivery of possession if circumstances warranted. There is no reason why this court should interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-