IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2009 / 16TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 22468 of 2009(O) --------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN EA. 757/06 IN EP.50/2003 IN OS.459/1999 of SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- RUKIYA, AGED 64 YEARS, W/O. KOTTAPPURATH MAMMU, THALIKKULAM VILLAGE, DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. MR.P.K.SAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ VYAPARAVIJAYAM CHITTIES & LOANS, (KERALA ) PVT LTD., THRISSUR, KUNNAMKULAM P.O. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C).No.22468 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of August 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs. i) Direct the court below to dispose of Exts.P1 and P3 applications filed by the petitioner in accordance with law. ii) Direct the court below to keep the delivery of the property in abeyance till a decision is taken on Exts.P1 and P3 applications. iii) Issue such other writ order or direction which the Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant to the facts and circumstances of the case. W.P.(C).No.22468OF 2009 Page numbers 2. Petitioner is the judgment debtor in E.P No.50 of 2003 in O.S No.459 of 1999 on the file of the Sub Court, Trissur. The decree which is executed is one for money and the respondent is the decree holder. The execution court has now ordered for delivery of the property of judgment debtor pursuant to sale is the grievance canvassed for seeking the above mentioned reliefs invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondent is necessary and it is dispensed with. On a previous occasion the petitioner has approached this court and filed a writ petition No. 19833 of 2006. W.P.(C).No.22468OF 2009 Page numbers While execution proceedings over the decree continued, an order was passed in the above writ petition directing him to deposit Rs.1,00,000/- before the execution court within the time limit fixed. That writ petition was also referred to lok adalath to examine the possibility of a settlement between the parties. In the lok adalath an agreement was reached with the decree holder, but, that was not honoured by the petitioner. The lok adalath therefore returned the case to this court on which the writ petition was dismissed. When that be the case, I find the present writ petition moved by the petitioner / judgment debtor cannot be entertained, and it is dismissed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv