IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2010 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 7280 of 2010(O) ------------------------------------- (EP.NO.59/2009 IN OS.NO.996/2005 OF SUB COURT,THRISSUR) .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- JACOB.P.P., S/O.P.K.POULOSE, PORTHUR (H), PERINGAVU, TRICHUR. BY ADV. SMT.E.V.MOLY. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- SHRI.JAYAKUMAR, S/O.SREEDHARAN NAIR, MANGATTU HOUSE, MULLAKKARA DESOM, OLLOOKKARA VILLAGE, TRICHUR DISTRICT. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C). No. 7280 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of March, 2010. JUDGMENT In this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “a) Call for the records leading to the issuance of Ext.P3 sale notice and set aside the same being illegal and unjustifiable. b) issue an order of stay of all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P2 subject to orders passed in Exts.P1 and P2.” 2. The petitioner suffered an ex-parte decree in O.S. 996 of 2005 before the Sub Court, Trichur. Execution proceedings were taken out by the decree holder. Then the petitioner approached the court below with a petition to set aside the ex-parte decree and filed a petition to condone the delay in filing the petition to WPC. 7280/2010. 2 set aside the ex-parte decree. It is stated that those petitions are pending consideration and in the meanwhile execution has been proceeded with. It is claimed that execution petition is posted for delivery. The prayer now made is that till the petition to set aside the ex-parte decree and the petition to condone the delay are disposed of, further proceedings in execution may be stayed. 3. There is no justification in the claim made. Petitioner had notice in the suit and did not care to contest. It is only after the execution proceedings were started and had progressed to a good extent that the petitioner had thought of getting the ex-parte decree set aside. If the petitioner was vigilant, petitioner could have avoided the situation. Moreover, the petitioner did not seek any orders from the court below regarding the execution proceedings. 4. I do not think that any interference is called for with the execution proceedings now in progress. WPC. 7280/2010. 3 This writ petition is without merits and it is accordingly dismissed. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.