IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2009 / 23RD ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 29213 of 2009(O) ------------------------------------- OS.479/2009 of MUNSIFF COURT, PERUMBAVOOR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------------- THYAGARAJAN, S/O.SREEDHARAN, RESIDING AT PARACHARUVIL VEEDU, KIZHAKKEKKARA MURI, VELIYAM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. USHA, RESIDING AT MARUTHIVILA VEEDU, KIZHAKKEKARA MURI, VELIYAM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM. 2. SADANANDAN, RESIDING AT MARUTHIVILA VEEDU, KIZHAKKEKARA MURI, VELIYAM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM. 3. CHELLAMMA, RESIDING AT MARUTHIVILA VEEDU, KIZHAKKEKARA MURI, VELIYAM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM. 4. SARASWATHY PARACHARUVILA VEEDU, VELIYAM VILLAGE, KIZHAKKEKARA MURI, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15 /10 /2009 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: mns S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.29213 OF 2009 (O) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking mainly the following relief: i. to issue a direction to direct the learned Munsiff to consider Exts.P4 and P5 applications in accordance with law and to pass orders thereon within a time limit that this Court may consider reasonable, pending consideration of the said applications to stay all further proceedings in Ext.P7 execution petition. 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.479 of 2004 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Kottarakkara. Suit was one for declaration of title and possession and for injunction. The defendants, resisting the suit claim, raised a counter claim as well. Plaintiff was absent when the suit came up for trial, and WPC.29213/09 2 the suit claim was dismissed for default. Counter claim raised by the defendants was allowed. Petitioner/plaintiff thereupon moved an application for restoring the suit with a petition to condone delay of 668 days. Meanwhile, the defendants/decree holders moved for executing the decree granted approving his counter claim. Petitioner seeks stay of further proceedings in the execution till disposal of his restoration application filed with a petition to condone delay by filing this writ petition. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondents is necessary, and, hence, it is dispensed with. Petitioner is a disabled person, and because of the fraud practiced upon him by a relative, who was engaged for prosecuting his case, it happened to be dismissed for default, and that dismissal came to the knowledge of the petitioner much later, is the submission of the learned counsel to seek indulgence of this Court for grant of the relief claimed. Having regard to the fact that the petition to condone delay WPC.29213/09 3 has been filed nearly two years after the dismissal of the suit and the petitioner having no case that he has taken any attempt to challenge the counter claim granted by taking any proceedings as envisaged by law, I find none of the reliefs canvassed by the petitioner can be granted. Writ petition is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp