IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2008 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 8775 of 2008(T) ------------------------- IA.423/2008 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM CS.492/2003 of MUNSIFF COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY .................... PETITIONER: -------------------- VIJAYAN PILLAI, S/O.VASEDEVAN PILLAI, VIJAYA MANDIRAM, PALACKAL MURI, THEVALAKKARA, KARUNAGAPALLY REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER V.THULASEEDHARAN PILLAI, VIJAYA MANDIRAM PALACKAL, THEVALAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT.(ORIGINAL POWR OF ATTORNEY IS PRODUCED BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT., KARUNAGAPALLY IN C.S.NO.492/2003) BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT: ------------------------ T.SREEPRAKASH, S/O.THANKAPPAN PILLAI, SREE BHAVAN, PALACKAL, THEVALAKKARA, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.RAMNATHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.8775/2008 T APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN C.S.NO.492/2003 DTD. 19/12/2003 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEALDTD. 06/03/2008 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.423/2008 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.C. NO. 8775 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 17th day of March, 2008. J U D G M E N T This writ petition is preferred with a prayer to defer the delivery of the property in E.P.312/04 in O.S.492/03 till a final decision is taken by the District Court, Kollam. Ext.P2 is an appeal and Ext.P3 is a delay condonation application. Now, the other side had entered appearance and has filed a counter statement opposing the reliefs claimed for. The suit for money has been decreed as early as on 19th December, 2003. In execution of the decree the property of the petitioner was put into auction and it has been purchased by the decree holder. With the permission of the Court the sale was confirmed, sale certificate issued and posted for delivery of the property. In spite all these proceedings the writ petitioner did not move. He filed an application under Section 47 to set aside the sale. He did not resort to Order 21 Rule 89 or 90 of CPC. So participation in the proceedings W.P.C 8775 OF 2008 -:2:- will show that he was fully conscious of the factum of a decree passed against him. Now when the property is ordered to be delivered he has preferred an appeal with a petition to condone the delay of more than four years. It is only a tactics to deprive the decree holder from enjoying the fruits of the decree. I do not want to go into the merits of the appeal or the delay condonation application. If ultimately the writ petitioner succeeds and if the law permits he should be entitled to the relief and the Court may be bound to pass an order regarding the same. Therefore, on the passage of time, I do not want to pass any order again enabling the writ petitioner to protract the proceedings indefinitely. Therefore the writ petition is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-