IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 13TH JUNE 2011 / 23RD JYAISHTA 1933 OP(C).No. 1643 of 2011(O) ------------------------- OS.258/2005 of MUNSIFF COURT,CHAVAKKAD .................... PETITIONER ------------------------------ KUNJU KUNJAN, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O.KARIYAN, KUNNATHUVALAPPIL HOUSE, KATTAKAMBAL VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. RAMACHANDRAN, S/O.KATHIYANI AMMA, SREENILAYAM, PERUMANOOR DESOM, CHALISSERI AMSOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. APPUKUTTAN, S/O.KARIYAN, KUNNATHUVALAPPIL HOUSE, KATTAKAMBAL VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.N.SUBRAMANIAM SRI.M.S.NARAYANAN THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------ O.P(C)No.1643 OF 2011 ------------------------------ Dated this the 13th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT Adv.Sri.N.Subramaniam appears for the first respondent. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted the following: The first respondent filed a suit for money against the second respondent, who is none other than the brother of the petitioner. In execution of the decree for money, the one half share of the second respondent in the property in question was sold in court auction and it was purchased by the first respondent. Later, the first respondent filed a suit for partition. A preliminary decree was passed. In the final decree proceedings, the property was sold in auction between the sharers, under the provisions of the Partition Act, since the property O.P(C)No.1643 OF 2011 2 could not be partitioned by metes and bounds. The petitioner was ex pare in the final decree proceedings. When delivery was attempted, the petitioner filed the Original Petition stating that he did not get a copy of the order passed by the Executing Court. Another prayer was also made to keep in abeyance the order for delivery. An interim order was granted on 20.5.2011. It comes up for extension of stay today. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner filed an application for setting aside the ex parte order, an application for condonation of delay and for stay of all the proceedings for delivery. The counsel submitted that in view of the subsequent developments, the Original Petition has become infructuous. Accordingly, the Original Petition is dismissed as infructuous. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms