IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2009 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 7534 of 2009(O) EP.145/2005 OF I ADDL.SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE PETITIONERS: 1. MOHAMMED ALI, S/O.EBRAHIM SOOPI, AGED 46, RESIDING AT 51, PIPE WALA BUILDING, 4TH PASTA LANE, COLABA POST, MUMBAI-400 005. 2. SHAUKATHALI, S/O.EBRAHIM SOOPI, AGED 47, RESIDING AT 51, PIPE WALA BUILDING, 4TH PASTA LANE, COLABA POST, MUMBAI-400 005. 3. MUMTAZ, D/O.EBRAHIM SOOPI, AGED 42, RESIDING AT 51, PIPE WALA BUILDING, 4TH PASTA LANE, COLABA POST, MUMBAI-400 005. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS RESPONDENTS: 1. P.M.SHAHEEDA, W/O.EBRAHIM SOOPI, AGED 69, RESIDING AT CONNAUGHT MANSION, OPP.COLABA POST, MUMBAI-400 005. 2. P.V.HEMALATHA, W/O.P.V.CHANDRAN, AGED 70, RESIDING AT KERALA KALA, AZCHAVATTAM IN VALAYAND AMSOM AND DESOM OF KOZHIKODE TALUK. R2 BY ADV. SRI.N.M.MADHU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) NO. 7534 OF 2009 O ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 6th April, 2009 JUDGMENT The prayer in the Writ Petition is to direct the Subordinate Judge's Court (I-A), Kozhikode to dispose of E.P.No.145 of 2005 expeditiously. 2. The petitioners are the decree holders in O.S.No.313 of 1996, on the file of the Sub Court, Kozhikode, in execution of which, E.P.No.145 of 2005 was filed by them. O.S.No.139 of 1981, on the file of the Sub Court, Kozhikode, was filed by the second respondent (P.V.Hemalatha) against the first respondent (P.M.Shaheeda) for specific performance. O.S.No.312 of 1996 and 313 of 1996 were filed by the petitioners against Hemalatha and shaheeda. Against the decision in O.S.No.139 of 1981, the matter was taken up before the Supreme Court. Before the Supreme Court, the parties entered into a compromise. The disputes between the parties in O.S.No.139 of 1981 and O.S.Nos.312 of 1996 and 313 of 1996 were settled. The compromise petition filed by the parties was accepted and a decree in terms of the compromise was passed. In execution of the decree in O.S.No.313 of 1996, the petitioners have filed E.P.No.145 of 2005. The second respondent W.P.(C) NO.7534 OF 2009 :: 2 :: (Hemalatha) has filed E.P.No.152 of 2005 to execute the decree in O.S.No.139 of 1981. Both these Execution Petitions are pending. 3. The prayer made by the petitioners to dispose of E.P.No.145 of 2005 expeditiously, as such is not opposed by the respondents. Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that the execution in E.P.No.145 of 2005 can effectively be done only when the compromise entered into by the parties on certain other aspects are complied with, for which, E.P.No.152 of 2005 is filed by the second respondent. He submitted that execution of the decree in O.S.No.313 of 1996 as prayed for in E.P.No.145 of 2005 could be had only if the reliefs in E.P.No.152 of 2005 are granted and those orders are implemented. Learned counsel for the second respondent, therefore, submits that E.P.No.152 of 2005 also may be directed to be disposed of expeditiously by the executing court. It is also submitted that both these Execution Petitions are posted before the Sub Court on the same date and that they are being considered together. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the only direction that is required is to direct the Sub Court to dispose of E.P.Nos.145 of 2005 and 152 of 2005 as expeditiously as possible. It is made clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the W.P.(C) NO.7534 OF 2009 :: 3 :: Execution Petitions or in respect of the contentions of the parties. The facts stated above are only narration of facts. The executing court shall consider the respective contentions of the parties and shall pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible and, at any rate, on or before 31.7.2009. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the second respondent that the decree in O.S.No.139 of 1981 shall be executed first and then only the question of execution of the decree in O.S.No.313 of 1996 would arise. The second respondent is free to raise these contentions before the executing court. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/