IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 9TH JANUARY 2009 / 19TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No.946 of 2009 (K) ------------------------------- OS.224/1994 of I ADDL.SUB COURT, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER: --------------- LAKSHMI, W/O. LATE BHAKARAN, KUNNATHULLY HOUSE, ERANELLUR, PERUMANNU, THALAPPILLY, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SREEJITH RESPONDENT: ---------------- VENUGOPALAN, S/O. ARUMUGHAN @ KUTTIKKAN, PUTHANPURAKKAL VARAVATTUR HOUSE, ERANELLUR, PERUMANNU, THALAPPILLY, THRISSUR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------ W. P. C. No.946 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT Heard the counsel for the petitioner. 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.1730/08 on the file of the Sub Court, Thrissur. The suit is one for declaration and for a consequential injunction and also for a decree declaring that the respondent obtained decree in O.S.224/94 of Sub Court, Thrissur by fraud and creating forged documents and to set aside the same declaring that the first respondent is not the son of late Kunnathully Gopalan. The petitioner moved Ext.P3 application for stay of execution of the decree in O.S.224/94. 3. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that no orders are being passed on Ext.P3 petition by the Sub Judge and execution proceedings in O.S.224/94 is being proceeded W. P. C. No.946 of 2009 -2- with. 4. In the result, I direct the Sub Judge, Thrissur to dispose of Ext.P3 petition positively within two weeks of the petitioner's producing a copy of this judgment before him with notice to counsel for the respondent/defendant in the court below. In the meanwhile, the proceedings in execution in O.S.224/94 shall stand stayed till orders are passed by the court below on Ext.P3. 5. This Writ Petition is thus disposed of even without notice to the respondent as issuance of notice to the respondent in the light of the order passed above is not deemed necessary. K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE kns/-