IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2010 / 23TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 33159 of 2008(V) -------------------------- OS.45/2005 of MUNSIF COURT, KANJIRAPPALLY .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- BABY SEEMON, KULATHANIYIL HOUSE POOVATHOLI PO., MANIMALA, KOTTAYAM-686544 BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW PHILIP EDAPPALLIL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. RADHAMANIAMMA MANGALATHU HOUSE POOVATHOLI PO., MANIMALA KOTTAYAM,PIN-686544. 2. K.SAHADEVAN NAIR MANGALATHU HOUSE POOVATHOLI PO., MANIMALA KOTTAYAM, PIN-686544. ADV. SRI.M.NARENDRA KUMAR FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC.33159/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN O.A.NO.1/2003 BEFORE THE LAND TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM. EXT.P2: COPY OF CERTIFICATE NO.844/05 OF VILLAGE OFFICER, MANIMALA. EXT.P3: COPY OF PLAINT IN O.S.NO.45/05 BEFORE MUNSIFF COURT, KANJIRAPPALLY. EXT.P4: COPY OF JUDGMENT IN O.S.NO.45/05 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, KANJIRAPPALLY. EXT.P5: COPY OF EXECUTION PETITION E.P.NO.38/08 IN O.S.NO.45/05 BEFORE MUNSIFF COURT, KANJIRAPPALLY. EXT.P6: COPY OF OBJECTION IN E.P.NO.38/08 IN O.S.NO.45/05 BEFORE MUNSIFF COURT, KANJIRAPPALLY. EXT.P7: COPY OF AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION FILED BY PETITIONER (E.A.NO.90/08) EXT.P8: COPY OF ORDER IN E.A.NO.90/08 IN E.P.NO.38/08 IN O.S.NO.45/05. EXT.P9: COPY OF ELECTION IDENTITY CARD DATED 27.8.2000 OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P9A: COPY OF RATION CARD IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONER. EXT.P9B: COPY OF NEW RATION CARD. EXT.P9C: COPY OF CERTIFICATE DATED 03.11.2004 OF BDO, KANJIRAPPALLY. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JDUGE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.33159 OF 2008 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the judgment debtor in E.A.No.90 of 2008 in E.P.No.38 of 2008 in O.S.No.45 of 2005 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Kanjirappally. Decree being executed in the above suit is one passed in a suit for mandatory injunction directing the petitioner/judgment debtor to vacate from the decree schedule property. Respondents are the decree holders. Decree was passed ex parte since the petitioner failed to appear and contest the suit. In the execution proceedings, petitioner/judgment debtor moved an application for stay of the proceedings contending that his application for purchasing of kudikidappu over the shed situate in the decree schedule property is pending consideration before the Land Tribunal, Kottayam. The learned Munsiff, after hearing both sides, dismissed that application for stay of the proceedings. Ext.P8 is the copy of that order. Propriety and WPC.33159/2008 2 correctness of that order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. I heard the counsel on both sides. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has filed an appeal against the ex parte decree with a petition to condone delay before the District Court, Kottayam and till disposal of that petition, it is prayed that the execution proceedings be stayed. It is submitted that the above appeal has been filed with a petition to condone delay of more than 1000 days. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find no indulgence can be extended to the petitioner/judgment debtor for the reason that he has preferred appeal against the ex parte decree with a condonation petition and that is pending consideration before the court. It is open to him to invite the attention of the court where such appeal is pending for an early disposal, provided, service is complete. If any such request is made by the petitioner, the court before which WPC.33159/2008 3 the appeal is pending, shall expeditiously consider the merit of the petition filed to condone the delay for preferring the appeal, and if so condoned, then pass appropriate orders for disposing the appeal as well after hearing both sides. Whatever that be, the request made for stay of the execution of the decree on the grounds canvassed cannot be entertained. I do not find any merit in the writ petition, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp