IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 14TH JUNE 2010 / 24TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 16876 of 2010(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27/03/2010 IN EA.99/2010 IN EP.149/2005 IN OS.158/1986 of MUNSIFF COURT,WADAKKANCHERRY .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. RADHA @ RADHAKUMARI AGED 57 YEARS, D/O.PULLUVAN SANKARAN, THAYYUR VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. JANAKI, AGED 83 YEARS, W/O.PULLUVAN SANKARAN, THAYYUR VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. KOMALAVALLY, D/O.PULLUVAN SANKARAN, THAYYUR VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4. SULOCHANA, D/O.PULLUVAN SANKARAN, THAYYUR VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.B.PRAJITH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. RAMACHANDRAN, S/O.PULLUVAN SANKARAN, THAYYUR VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. SAROJINI, D/O.PULLUVAN SANKARAN, THAYYUR VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.16876 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of June, 2010. JUDGMENT Petitioners are aggrieved as learned Munsiff, Wadakkanchery who is executing the decree in O.S.No.158 of 1986 refused to stay execution of that decree pending disposal of O.S.No.602 of 2009 of the same court. O.S.No.158 of 1986 is a suit for partition which ended in preliminary and final decrees which were confirmed in appeal as well. Petitioners filed O.S.No.602 of 2009 in the same court stating that petitioners were able to trace a relevant document which would show that respondents were not entitled to get partition of the suit property. Petitioners were not able to produce the said document in O.S.No.158 of 1986. Hence they filed O.S.No.602 of 2009 for stay of execution of the decree in O.S.No.158 of 1986 as confirmed by the appellate court. That was declined by the executing court and hence the Writ Petition. Learned counsel for petitioners contend that since petitioners were not aware of the relevant document, they were not able to produce the same in O.S.No.158 of 1986. 2. The decree being executed is one for partition in a suit filed in the year 1986. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case I do not think that execution of decree has to wait till the suit of the year 2009 is finally disposed of. If at all petitioners succeed in their attempt in O.S.No.602 of 2009, they have ample remedies to get back possession of the property. There WP(C) No.16876/2010 2 is no reason why a decree obtained in a suit of the year 1986 has to be stayed in the year 2010, after about 24 years of litigation. Having regard to the circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the executing court not to grant stay as prayed for. Writ Petition is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks