IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2008 / 8TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 3127 of 2008(V) ------------------------------------- OS.627/2005 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT.,ERNAKULAM. .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- A.P.DAISY, AGED 44 YEARS, D/O.A.J.PAUL, HARISREE, HOUSE NO.37/2833, AZAD ROAD, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- BISHOP DR.THOMAS MAR KOORILOSE, S/O.NINAN KOSHY, BISHOP MALANKARA CATHOLIC DIOCESE, MUVATTUPUZHA, REP. BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, REV.FR.KURIAN ARAMPILLY KUDY, S/O.KURIAN, VIMALAGIRI BISHOPS HOUSE, MUDAVOOR PO MOOVATTUPUZHA. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== W.P.(C) No.3127 OF 2008 ===================== Dated this the 28th day of January 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed to set aside the order passed by the Prl.Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam in E.P.No.201 of 2007 in O.P.No.627 of 2005, whereby the court had directed delivery of the building on 20.2.2008 and for report on 21.2.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is an ex parte decree passed by the court below and the reason for becoming ex parte was that no notice had been served on her. She had moved an application before the court for setting aside the ex parte decree with a petition to condone the delay as I.A.Nos.7698 & 7699 of 2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the delivery is effected before the disposal of those applications, it will cause serious injustice to her and therefore requests the court to interfere with the matter. Being an ex parte decree, it is desirable that at least the execution petition is kept pending till the disposal of the applications for condoning the delay and setting aside the ex parte decree. Therefore, I direct the Prl.Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam to consider WP.(C) 3127/2008 -:2:- and dispose of I.A.Nos.7698 & 7699/2007 as expeditiously as possible, after hearing both sides. I am informed that notice is not served on that applications. Since the decree holder is already represented in the execution petition, a notice can be given to the counsel appearing for the decree holder and the matter can be disposed of at the earliest. Therefore till the disposal of the application to condone the delay and setting aside the ex parte decree, I direct the executing court not to effect delivery of the property. The court below shall after the disposal of the applications give a week's time and fix a date for delivery of the property. Needless to say that before effecting delivery, the objection filed by the petitioner has also to be taken into consideration. Writ petition is disposed of as above. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-