IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2009 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 8710 of 2009(O) EP.178/2008 of MUNI-MAGI.COURT,PONNANI PETITIONER: --------------- MEPPADATH PREMKUMAR, S/O.KUMARAN, PURANG AMSOM, PANAMBAD DESOM, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. PANAMUKKIL VASU, EASWARAMANGALAM AMSOM, NEITHALLUR DESOM,PONNANI TALUK,MALAPPURAM. 2. PANAMUKKIL SANTHA, D/O.VASU, EASWARAMANGALAM AMSOM, NEITHALLUR DESOM,PONNANI TALUK,MALAPPURAM. 3. PANAMUKKIL SREENIVASAN, S/O.VASU, EASWARAMANGALAM AMSOM, NEITHALLUR DESOM,PONNANI TALUK,MALAPPURAM. 4. AYIRAPPARAMBIL MANOHARAN, S/O.SANKUNNI, EDAPPAL AMSOM,PONNAZHIKKARA DESOM, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 5. AYIRAPPARAMBIL SATHIAN, S/O.SANKUNNI, PONNAZHIKKARA DESOM, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 6. AYIRAPPARAMBIL VIJAYA, D/O.SANKUNNI, EDAPPAL AMSOM, PONNAZHIKKARA DESOM, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 7. MEPPADATH PATHMAVATHI, D/O.NARAYANI, PURANG AMSOM, PANAMBAD DESOM, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 8. MEPPADATH CHANDRIKA, D/O.NARAYANI, PURANG AMSOM, PANAMBAD DESOM, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 9. MEPPADATH SULOCHANA, D/O.NARAYANI, PURANG AMSOM, PANAMBAD DESOM, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 10. MEPPADATH RAVI, S/O.NARAYANI, PURANG AMSOM, PANAMBAD DESOM, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 11. SHEEBA, W/O.MEPPADATH RAJAN, PURANG AMSOM, PANAMBAD DESOM, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 12. RIYA, D/O.MEPPADATH RAJAN, PURANG AMSOM, PANAMBAD DESOM, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 13. RAKHI, D/O.MEPPADATH RAJAN, PURANG AMSOM, PANAMBAD DESOM, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 14. THANKAMANI, D/O.PANTHAYIL BALAN, PURANG AMSOM, PANAMBAD DESOM, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 15. RAJAN, S/O.PANTHAYI BALAN, PURANG AMSOM, PANAMBAD DESOM, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 16. CHANDRAN, W/O.PANTHAYIL BALAN, PURANG AMSOM, PANAMBAD DESOM, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 17. SEKHARAN, S/O.KANNATH KARAPPAN, PAZHANJI AMSOM, MANGAD DESOM, TRISSUR DISTRICT. 18. RAJA, S/O.KANNATH SEKHARAN, PAZHANJI AMSOM, MANGAD DESOM, TRISSUR DISTRICT. 19. PRADHEEP, S/O.KANNATH SEKHARAN, PAZHANJI AMSOM, MANGAD DESOM, TRISSUR DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) NO. 8710 OF 2009 O ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 18th March, 2009 JUDGMENT Against the final decree for partition passed in O.S.No.2 of 1989, on the file of the Court of the Munsiff-Magistrate of Ponnani, the petitioner filed A.S.NO.75 of 2008 before the Sub Court, Tirur. There is delay in filing the appeal. The petitioner has filed an application for condonation of delay. He has also filed an application for stay of the execution proceedings. 2. Since there was delay in filing the appeal, the appellate court evidently has not granted any stay of execution. The Execution Petition was proceeded with. Delivery was ordered. The petitioner obstructed the delivery. The decree holders filed an application to render police aid to the Amin for effecting delivery. Since obstruction was made by the judgment debtor himself, the court below allowed the application and police aid was ordered. 3. The Writ Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the executing court ordering police aid to the Amin. There is also a prayer for W.P.(C) NO.8710 OF 2009 :: 2 :: an early disposal of the application for condonation of the delay and the application for stay in A.S.No.75 of 2008, Sub Court, Tirur. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that now delivery is over and, therefore, relief (a) in the Writ Petition has become infructuous. As regards relief (b), that is, for a direction to the Sub Court, Tirur to dispose of the application for condonation of delay and the application for stay in the appeal filed by the petitioner, I do not think that any order need be passed in this Writ Petition. To pass such an order, it is necessary to serve notice on the 19 respondents. For that purpose, the Writ Petition need not be admitted. Petitioner would be free to move the appellate court for an early hearing of the application for condonation of delay. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/