IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2010 / 1ST SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23172 of 2010(O) -------------------------- OS.353/2000 of MUNSIFF'S COURT,THODUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. SAJI THOMAS, AGED 42 YEARS, SON OF THOMAS, MANGALATH HOUSE, ARIKKUZHA.P.O, MANACAUD VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA. 2. ANITH MANGALATH, AGED 41 YEARS, WIFE OF SAJI THOMAS, MANGALATH HOUSE, ARIKKUZHA.PO., MANACAUD VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SEBI M.THOMAS, S/O.THOMAS, MANGALATHU HOUSE, THODUPUZHA. BY ADVS. SRI.V.M.KURIAN, SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN, SMT.TULASI PANICKER, SRI.K.T.THOMAS, SRI.C.N.SREEKUMAR, SRI.ASISH K.JOHN. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. JOHNSON, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, NELLIKUNNEL HOUSE, KADALIKADAV, KOLANI.P.O., PLANTATION JUNCTION, MANJALLOOR VILLAGE, PIN-685 584. 2. KRISHNAN POTTI, AGED 70 YEARS, SON OF SANKARAN POTTI, KAROTTUMADATHIL, THODUPUZHA.PO. THODUPUZHA KARA, THODUPUZHA VILLAGE. PIN-685 584. 3. MARIAMMA THOMAS, WIFE OF ITTY THOMAS, AGED 57 YEARS, PALAKKOOTTATHIL HOUSE, THODUPUZHA.P.O., THODUPUZHA VILLAGE.PIN-685 584. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) No. 23172 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioners, non parties in O.S. No.353 of 2000 of Munsiff's Court, Thodupuzha seek a direction to the learned Munsiff to dispose of Exts.P6 and P7 applications at the earliest. 2. Petitioners claim to be bona fide purchasers of the suit property from respondent No.3 as per a sale deed dated 23-2-2007 respondent No.3 having purchased that property from respondent No.2 after institution of the suit. O.S. No.353 of 2000 is a suit filed by respondent No.1 for specific performance of an agreement for sale. A decree was passed in favour of respondent No.1. He sought delivery of property and the property was allegedly delivered to him. At that stage claiming to be bona fide purchasers without notice of pendency of the suit, petitioners stepped into the scene and filed Exts.P6 to P8 applications. Ext.P8, application for stay has already been W.P.(C) No. 23172/2010 2 dismissed by the learned Munsiff. What remains, according to the learned counsel for petitioners is Exts.P6 and P7 applications to set aside delivery of property in favour of respondent No.1 and to restrain him from entering into the property claimed by petitioners. 3. Without going into the merit of the case of petitioners, I direct learned Munsiff to dispose of Exts.P6 and P7 applications at the earliest. Writ petition is disposed of as above. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. mn.