IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2008 / 10TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 25796 of 2008(U) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19/08/2008 IN EP 301/2006 IN OS.270/1994 OF II ADDL.SUB COURT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. .................... PETITIONER: ------------- NALINI, AGED 86, W/O. LATE P.BHARGAVAN, PARVATHY MANDIRAM, KOLLOOR ROAD, KANNAMMOOLA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV.SRI.N. SUKUMARAN SRI.G.BENO RESPONDENT: --------------- KAMEELANCE CHELLAYYAN, PIOUS ILLOM, CHRIAKOLLA P.O., KARAKONAM, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. (POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER OF MARY JOSEPHINE MICHAEL, 23, PORT LAND RISCO, LONDON, N4, 2P7) BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) NO. 25796 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 1st day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT This petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set aside Ext.P3 order passed by Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram in E.P.301 of 2006 directing delivery of the property as provided under the decree in O.S.270 of 1994 as confirmed in A.S.277 of 1998. Though it was submitted on 27.8.2008 that respondent who filed the suit is no more, a special messenger has served notice on the said person and Advocate Shri. R.S. Kalkura has filed Vakalath for him. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that as against the judgment in A.S.277 of 1998 a second appeal was filed, and it was returned but not represented as it was misplaced among other files and petitioner is now representing the same and in such circumstances an opportunity may be granted to the petitioner to get an order from the second Appellate Court. Learned counsel appearing for respondent pointed out that inspite of the fact that suit was instituted in WP(C)25796/08 2 1994 respondents could not enjoy the fruits of the decree so far and there is no justification for granting time. Writ petition is disposed directing the executing Court to keep the order for delivery in abeyance for three weeks from today to enable the petitioner to get orders in the second appeal. It is made clear that the petitioner is not entitled to get further extension of the period in this writ petition. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE Okb/-