IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 17TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 3948 of 2009(T) ------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. UNNIKRISHNAN, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.KARIYANGADAN VELU, P.O.VELLANIKKARA, VELLANIKKARA VILLAGE. THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. MADHAVI, AGED 70, W/O.LATE VASU, VELLANIKKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.VENUGOPAL RESPONDENT: --------------- SAHADEVAN, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.KAYAMPALLATH VISWAMBHARAN, OLLUKKARA VILLAGE & DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.3948 of 2009-T --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th February, 2009. J U D G M E N T The respondent filed O.S.No.1255/2004 on the file of the Court of Munsiff, Thrissur, for recovery of the possession of plaint schedule property on the strength of title, for fixation of the boundaries and for injunction. A compromise was entered into between the parties. On the the basis of compromise, the trial court passed a compromise decree dated 18.8.2006. As per the terms of the compromise, the plaintiff agreed to assign the plaint schedule property in favour of the first defendant for a consideration of Rs.70,000/-. The consideration was to be paid by the first defendant within six months. It is an admitted case that the first defendant failed to pay the consideration. The respondent decree holder filed E.P.No.1704/2007 for execution of the decree. The execution petition is pending. 2. The Writ Petition is filed by the defendants praying for a direction allowing the first defendant to deposit the sum of Rs.70,000/- with reasonable interest and directing the respondent to accept the same. The petitioners also pray for staying further proceedings in E.P.No.1704/2007. It is submitted that the petitioners are prepared to pay the sum of Rs.70,000/- stipulated to be paid as per the W.P(C) No.3948 of 2009-T 2 compromise dated 16.8.2006. It is stated that the respondent is not willing to accept the consideration and to execute a sale deed in favour of the first respondent. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner cited a decision of the Supreme Court in Smt.Periyakkal and others V. Smt. Dakshayani (1983) 2 Supreme Court Cases 127 and submitted that even in the case of the compromise decree, the Court is entitled to extend the period fixed in the compromise for performing the terms of the compromise. The case before the Supreme Court was a case relating to the application under Order XXI Rule 90 to set aside the sale. The executing court dismissed the application but the First Appellate Court set aside the sale. During the pendency of the Second Appeal before the High Court, the parties entered into a compromise and the appellants agreed to pay a certain amount to the respondent within a stipulated time in full and final settlement of the decree. The appellants failed to pay the amount. An application was filed under Section 148 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for extension of time, which was dismissed by the High Court. On appeal, the Supreme Court held the Court can enlarge the time stipulated in the compromise decree in the interest of justice. It was also held that time would be granted in rare cases to prevent manifest injustice and W.P(C) No.3948 of 2009-T 3 it would not be extended ordinarily, nor for the mere asking. 4. The petitioners are not entitled to challenge in the Writ Petition the execution proceedings or to make a prayer to stay the same and seek for extension of time to deposit the amount as per the terms of compromise. Even assuming the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above could be applied to the facts of the case, a prayer of such extension could be made only before the Court which passed the decree. I do not think that the Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be entertained for the reliefs prayed for therein. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to work out their remedies before the appropriate forum. It is made clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case or in respect of any relief which the petitioners may make before the appropriate forum. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE ab W.P(C) No.3948 of 2009-T 4 W.P(C) No.3948 of 2009-T 5 W.P(C) No.3948 of 2009-T 6 W.P(C) No.3948 of 2009-T 7