IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2009 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 8318 of 2009(O) AS.23/2009 OF SUB COURT, TIRUR OS.265/1999 OF MUNSIFF COURT, TIRUR PETITIONER: --------------- SUBRAMANIAN, S/O.THAMI, POLAKKAL HOUSE, VALIYAKUNNU AMSOM AND DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A RESPONDENT: --------------- KAITHARAVALAPPIL CHANDRIKA, W/O.VISWANATHAN, MANCHERI VELUTHEDATHU, VALIYAKUNNU AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) NO. 8318 OF 2009 O ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 16th March, 2009 JUDGMENT The respondent herein filed O.S.No.265 of 1999 before the Munsiff's Court, Tirur for eviction of the petitioner from the building which belongs to the respondent. The petitioner claimed kudikidappu right. He also filed an application before the Land Tribunal under Section 80B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. That application was dismissed. The appeal filed by him before the Appellate Authority was also dismissed. It is submitted that a Revision was filed against that judgment. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Revision was returned for curing certain defects and it was re-presented. He also stated that the Registry takes the view that it was not re-presented. Whatever it may be, as things stand, the order passed by the Land Tribunal as confirmed by the Appellate authority govern the field . 2. The suit for eviction was decreed exparte. The petitioner filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That application was dismissed on the merits. The Appeal filed against that order was also dismissed. The petitioner challenged the order and the judgment in Revision. The Revision was also dismissed. W.P.(C) NO.8318 OF 2009 :: 2 :: 3. Thereafter, the petitioner filed A.S.No.23 of 2009 before the Sub Court, Tirur challenging the exparte decree. Ext.P5 application dated 20.2.2009 was filed in the Appeal to condone the delay of 880 days in filing the Appeal. Ext.P6 application dated 20.2.2009 was also filed in the Appeal praying for stay of all further proceedings in E.P.No.80 of 2007. It is submitted that Ext.P5 and Ext.P6 applications are pending. 4. Meanwhile, execution proceedings were initiated. Delivery was ordered. The petitioner apprehends delivery of the property before 20.3.2009. This Writ Petition is filed with a prayer to issue a direction to the Sub Court, Tirur to hear and dispose of Exts.P5 and P6 applications and also to pass an order of stay of execution of the decree, pending disposal of Exts.P5 and P6 applications. 5. The suit was filed in 1999. All the attempts made by the petitioner to challenge the exparte decree failed. His application for purchase of kudikidappu also stands dismissed. More than ten years passed after filing the suit. At this juncture, if the execution proceedings are stayed, it will cause great injustice to the decree holder. The relief prayed for to dispose of Exts.P5 and P6 applications is closely connected with the prayer for stay. Exts.P5 and P6 applications were filed only in W.P.(C) NO.8318 OF 2009 :: 3 :: February 2009. It is not necessary to issue a direction as prayed for. There is no merit in the contention that the execution proceedings are liable to be stayed. The Writ Petition lacks merits and it is accordingly dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/