IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2009 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 36674 of 2009(O) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- MATHEW JOSEPH, SON OF VARGHESE, KATTOOR HOUSE, VADAYAR, VAIKOM. BY ADVS. MR.T.M.RAMAN KARTHA, MR. BIJU PONTAYIL. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- ROSAMMA JAMES, WIFE OF JAMES, KAVUNKAL VEEDU, KATTOOR HOUSE, NOW RESIDING AT KAVUNKAL HOUSE, VAZHOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR. P. GOPINATH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/12/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.36674/2009-O: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN O.S. NO. 143/2002 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, VAIKOM DTD. 06/11/2007. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 18/08/2009 IN A.S. NO. 12/2008 OF THE DISTRICT COURT, KOTTAYAM. EXT.P.3; COPY OF THE RESTORATION APPLICATION IN I.A. NO. 1712/2009 DTD. SEP. 2009. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE PETITION TO CONDONE THE DELAY. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE EXECUTION PETITION NO.307/2009 IN O.S. NO. 143/2002 DTD. 23/10/2009. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE STAY PETITION. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.36674 OF 2009 -------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of December 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Petitioner is the defendant in O.S No.143 of 2002 on the file of Munsiff Court, Vaikom. The above suit is one for eviction which had been decreed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. Petitioner preferred an appeal against the decree and judgment rendered in the above suit as A.S No.12 of 2008 before the District Court, Kottayam. That appeal was dismissed for default. Meanwhile the respondent/decree holder applied for executing the decree. Petitioner moved an application for stay of operation of the execution submitting that he has filed an application for restoring the appeal dismissed for default. His request for stay of the execution was declined by the execution court. Hence he has filed this writ petition invoking the visitorial jurisdiction of this court for issuing a direction to the District Judge, Kottayam to consider and dispose of his application for restoring the appeal, dismissed for default, espeditiously, and also to stay the operation of the execution proceedings from the decree impugned in the appeal till disposal of his application for restoring the appeal. W.P.(C).No.36674 OF 2009 Page numbers 2. Respondent has entered appearance. I heard the counsel on both sides. As seen from Ext.P6 statement filed by the petitioner, it is seen that the application filed by the petitioner to condone delay for restoring his appeal dismissed for default stands posted before the District Court on 23/12/2009. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that he will enter appearance and file objections to both the applications ie, for condoning delay and also for restoring the appeal on or before 05/01/2010. Having regard to the facts and circumstances presented, I direct the learned District Judge to hear and dispose of the applications moved by the petitioner for restoring his appeal dismissed for default within six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy this judgment. There will be a direction to the execution court to keep in abeyance further proceedings for a period of eight weeks and then proceed with the execution subject to the result of the orders passed by the District Judge in the restoration application moved by the petitioner. Petition is disposed as indicated above. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, //TRUE COPY// JUDGE vdv P.A TO JUDGE