IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2010 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 11814 of 2010(O) -------------------------------------- OS.14/2001 of SUB COURT, OTTAPPALAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ C.A.UNNIKRISHNAN, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O. APPU GUPTHAN, CHEMPANEPADATH HOUSE, ELUMBULLASSERRY P.O., OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL SMT.AMBIKA RADHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- THE CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD., REP.BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, OLAVAKKODE BRANCH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss P. BHAVADASAN, J --------------------------- W.P.(C).No.11814 OF 2010 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of April, 2010 J U D G M E N T In this writ petition filed under section 227 of Constitution of India, the following reliefs are sought for: “i. Call for the records leading to Ext.P3 and set aside the” same. ii. Render appropriate directions directing to keep in abeyance all further proceedings in E.P.94 of 2008 in O.S.14/2001 till the final disposal of C.M.A.43 of 2008 and 47 of 2008 pending before the District Court, Palakkad.” 2. Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.14/2001 before the Sub Court, Palakkad. Suit was decreed exparte. Petitioner claims that application was filed to set aside exparte decree as I.A.95/06. The said application was dismissed for default. The application for restoration was filed along with delay condonation petition. Trial court was W.P.(c) No.11814/10 2 not impressed by the reasons given for condonation of delay and dismissed those petitions also. It is stated that two C.M.As, namely C.M.A.43/08 and 47/08 have been preferred and they were pending before the District Court, Palakkad. The grievance of the petitioner is that in the meanwhile execution is being taken out of the exparte decree. Therefore it is prayed that until the C.M.As are disposed of execution proceedings may be kept in abeyance. 3. It is to be noticed that the petitioner had moved the appellate court. It will not be proper for this court to pass any order when the matters are pending before the lower court. Reserving the liberty of the petitioner to move lower appellate court seeking stay of execution of decree, this writ petition is dismissed. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. Sou.