IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2010 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 16489 of 2010(O) -------------------------- OS.103/2008 of SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.V.RAJAN,AGED 52,S/O.LATE P.C.VARGHESE, SNEHA BHAVAN,ULLANNUR MURI,KULANADA VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK,PATHANAMTHITTA DIST.,FORMERLY MANAGING DIRECTOR OF BEST HOME CONTRACTING LLC,P.B.NO.25668, UAE, REP.BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY, SIJO K.R., AGED 35, S/O.RAPHEAL K.T., KADAVIL HOUSE,CHEERACHI DESOM,CHIYYARAN VILLAGE,THRISSUR TALUK & DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SABAH ENGINEERING & MARINE SERVICES,UAE, SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN, OWNED BY MOHAMMED RAMDAN MOUSA AL SAWJANI, AGED 62, UAE NATIONAL,UAE PASSPORT NO.A.0374114, P.B.NO.521,DUBAI,UAE,REP.BY ITS WORKS CUM LEGAL MANAGER, K.S.APPUKUTTAN,AGED 65, S/O. LATE SANKARAN, ITS AUTHORISED AGENT AND WORKS-CUM-LEGAL MANAGER, AN INDIAN NATIONAL HAVING HAVING PERMANENT RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS AT KUTTIYIL HOUSE, CHENNITHALA, CHERUKOLE P.O., CHENNITHALA VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. K.S.APPUKUTTAN, AGED 65, S/O. LATE SANKARAN, KUTTIYIL HOUSE, CHENNITHALA, CHERUKOLE P.O., CHENNITHALA VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 3. SABAH ENGINEERING & MARINE SERVICES,UAE, SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN, OWNED BY MOHAMMED RAMDAN MOUSA AL SAWJANI, AGED 62, UAE NATIONAL, UAE PASSPORT NO.A.0374114, P.B.NO.44, SHARJAH AND PB NO.521,DUBAI,UAE,REP.BY KOOTTUMMEL JOB JOSEPH, AGED 58, HOLDER OF INDIAN PASSPORT NO.Z 1179424, KALARICKAL HOUSE, INDUSTRIAL NAGAR PO., VEROOR,CHANGANACHERRY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. WP(C) NO.16489/2010 2 4. KOOTTUMMEL JOB JOSEPH,AGED 58, KALARICKAL HOUSE, INDUSTRIAL NAGAR P.O., VEROOR, CHANGANACHERRY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.16489 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of May, 2010. JUDGMENT Writ petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.103 of 2008 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Pathanamthitta. He sued for a declaration that all the proceedings and decree in O.S.No.152 of 2001 of that court is null and void and in the alternative to set aside the same. In the meantime, respondent who obtained the decree in O.S.No.152 of 2001 launched execution by filing E.P.No.30 of 2008. Petitioner filed application under Order 21 Rule 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”) in the execution petition for stay of execution. He filed a similar application in O.S.No.103 of 2008. In the meantime, O.S.No.103 of 2008 was dismissed for default. According to the petitioner, on account of mistake on the part of clerk of counsel in noting the date of posting the suit was dismissed. Immediately thereafter an application for restoration was filed. That application was posted on 22.05.2010. Grievance of petitioner is that learned Sub Judge heard the application for restoration and applications for stay under Order 21 Rule 29 of the Code preferred in O.S.No.103 of 2008 as well as in E.P.No.30 of 2008 in O.S.No.152 of 2001 and proposes to pronounce orders on the said applications simultaneously which will affect right of petitioner in case restoration of the suit is not allowed. According to the learned counsel, decision on the applications for stay has to be deferred to a date after disposal of the application for restoration. WP(C) No.16489/2010 2 2. It is not disputed that all these applications are filed in the same court though, one application is filed in execution side dealing with execution of the decree in O.S.No.152 of 2001. I do not find anything illegal in the learned Sub Judge hearing all the applications together and disposing of the same simultaneously. Nor can petitioner insist that the applications are to be disposed of on different dates. Hence there can be no direction as prayed for in this petition to defer decision on the applications for stay to a day after disposal of the application for restoration. It is for the court concerned to hear the grievance of petitioner and decide whether the applications are to be disposed of simultaneously or separately. Resultantly this Writ Petition is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks