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. 18410 of 2010(O) -------------------------- E.P.NO.335/2009 IN OS.1482/2006 of MUNSIFF COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- SNDP BRANCH NO.2682 PONNURUNNI WEST LALSALAM ROAD-PONNURUNNI, COCHIN-19, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY SRI.U.K.PANKAJAKSHAN. BY ADV. SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN (MVA) SRI.A.R.EASWAR LAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. V.K.AJITHA KUMARY, W/O.PRASAD, AGED 42, VALLIKADAVU KUNJAN BHAVAN ROAD, VYTTILA P.O., PONNURUNNI, KOCHI-19. 2. B.SURENDRAN, S/O.BHANU PANIKAR, SECRETARY, SNDP BRANCH NO.2682, THUNDIPARAMBIL HOUSE SARALAYAM, VATHURUTHY, MALSYAPURI, P.O. KOCHI-29. 3. P.RAVEENDRAN, EX-PRESIDENT, SNDP BRANCH NO.2682, VEL-COTTAGE L.P.SCHOOL ROAD, PONNURUNNI, VYTTILA P.O., KOCHI-19. 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.18410 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of June, 2010. JUDGMENT Judgment debtor No.3 in E.P.No.335 of 2009 in O.S.No.1482 of 2006 of the court of learned Munsiff, Ernakulam is the petitioner before me seeking stay of execution of decree until Exts.P5, P6 and P8, applications for setting aside the exparte decree, condonation of delay of 1093 days and for stay of execution of exparte decree are disposed of by the learned Munsiff. Respondent No.1 filed a suit for recovery of Rs.50,000/- from petitioner and respondent Nos.2 and 3. There was an exparte decree in favour of respondent No.1. With 1093 days delay petitioner filed applications to set aside the exparte decree and to stay execution of that decree. According to the petitioner respondent No.1 is avoiding notice on the said applications but she is vigourously prosecuting the execution petition where executing court has ordered attachment of immovable properties of petitioner. Learned counsel submits that application for attachment of immovable property of petitioner is pending consideration of the executing court of this day. It is also pointed out by learned counsel that in similar cases where petitioner had opportunity to contest, petitioner was found not liable to pay the amount allegedly received by respondent Nos.2 and 3. 2. As it is, there is a decree though exparte in favour of respondent No.1 which binds petitioner. Until that decree is set aside it remains in force WP(C) No.18410/2010 2 and is executable. Having regard to the circumstances of the case I do not consider it necessary or proper to stay execution of the decree as prayed for. It is open to the petitioner to show cause against attachment of its property and if petitioner is so advised, it can also avoid attachment by furnishing security as provided by law. Even when the attachment is effected be it in execution petitioner can furnish security and request for lifting of attachment of the property (see Sidharthan v. Praveen Chandran (2008 (1) KLT 136). In that situation there is no reason why this Court shall stay execution of the decree. However I direct the learned Munsiff to expedite disposal of Exts.P5, P6 and P8, applications pending consideration in O.S.No.1482 of 2006. Learned Munsiff shall make every endeavour to dispose of the said applications at the earliest. Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks