IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2010 / 1ST MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 27897 of 2009(O) --------------------------------------- OS.1047/2002 of ADDL. SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SUBHADRA, AGED 65, PENSIONER, W/O.ELEDATHU PARAMBIL KUNHAMMU, PERINGOTTUKARA DESOM, THANNYAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. MR.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR), MR.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH). RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ M.P. JAYAPRAKASAN, S/O.PADMANABHAN, MUDATHOLI HOUSE, PULLAZHY P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.G.UNNIKRISHNAN, MR.K.SANEESH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/01/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 27897/2009-O APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE COMPROMISE DECREE PASSED IN O.S.1047/2002 DATED 05/04/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SUB COURT, THRISSUR. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN EP NO.286/2007 IN O.S.1047/2002 DATED 15/11/2007. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL COUNTER FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN EP NO.286/2007 IN OS.1047/2002 DATED 15/09/2008. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE SALE PROCLAMATION DATED 25/06/2008 IN EP.286/2007 IN OS.1047/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SUB COURT, THRISSUR. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.27897 OF 2009 -------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of January 2010 ---------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs. i) Call for the records leading to Ext.P4 and may be pleased to quash the same. ii) Pass any such or further orders as the petitioner may seek and this Hon'ble Court deem fit to grant. 2. Petitioner is the judgment debtor in E.P No.286 of 2007 in O.S No.1047 of 2002 on the file of 2nd Additional Sub Court, Thrissur. Decree being executed is one passed in a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale, and the respondent is the decree holder. A compromise decree was passed in the suit on 05/04/2006 by which the petitioner/judgment debtor agreed to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000 in terms of the compromise entered by the parties creating a charge over the immovable properties specified belonging to the judgment debtor. A time limit of two months was also fixed under the compromise decree for W.P.(C).No. 27897 OF 2009 Page numbers discharge of the decree debt by the judgment debtor. That being defaulted, the decree holder proceeded for execution of the decree and when steps were taken to proceed with the sale of the charged property which had been attached prior to attachment the present writ petition was filed seeking the aforementioned reliefs invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the counsel on both sides. On the submissions made by the learned counsel that if a breathing time is provided, the petitioner will discharge the decree debt a conditional stay of execution was passed directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards part of the decree debt. It is submitted, that order was complied with. Later, the decree holder was directed to deposit a further sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards the decree debt within a period of six weeks. That order was passed on 16/11/2009. The learned counsel for the petitioner/judgment debtor submitted, that order has not been complied with till W.P.(C).No. 27897 OF 2009 Page numbers date. After hearing the counsel on both sides at length, I find that the filing of the writ petition by the judgment debtor is only intended to prolong and protract the execution of the decree based on the compromise between the parties. Not only that, the terms of the compromise have been flouted the direction issued by the court which was agreed to at the time of presentation of the writ petition has not been honoured to. In that backdrop, I find, no indulgence can be shown to the petitioner/judgment debtor as it would result injustice in depriving the decree holder of enjoying the fruits of the decree. Writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv