IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2010 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 9982 of 2010(O) ------------------------------------- [OS.NO.65/2007 OF I ADDL.SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM] .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- P.LATHADEVI, W/O. MADAN MOHAN, SREEDEVI NIVAS, VENNALA, EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. MR.C.N.SAMEER. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. SREEDEVI KRISHNA KUMAR, W/O. KRISHNA KUMAR, KARTHIKA, KAITHARAM, KOTTUVALLY, PARUR TALUK. 2. JEEVAN RAJ, S/O. AYYAPPAN, CHULLIPPARAMBIL, KAKKANAD, KAKKANAD VILLAGE. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C). No. 9982 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of March, 2010. JUDGMENT Petitioner is the first defendant in O.S. 65 of 2007 pending before the 1st Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam. The first respondent herein had instituted the suit, which was one for specific performance. The case of the plaintiff was that the petitioner herein had entered into an agreement for sale with him relating to the property belonging to the first defendant as per a settlement deed. Copy of the plaint is produced as Ext.P1. It is stated that the petitioner herein had filed a written statement and contested the matter. The suit was decreed on 20.1.2009. The second defendant was set ex parte. The second defendant thereafter filed a petition to set aside the ex parte decree with a petition to condone the delay. Those petitions are produced as Exts.P2 and P3. During the pendency of Exts.P2 and P3, WPC.9982/2010. 2 it is stated that the decree holder has invoked the Section 28(3) of the Specific Relief Act read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Copy of the petition is produced as Ext.P4. Petitioner apprehends that the prayers in Ext.P4 will be allowed. She prays that until Exts.P2 and P3 are disposed, there may be a direction not to proceed with Ext.P4. She also prays for an early disposal of Exts.P2 and P3. 2. In the nature of the order that is proposed to be passed, it is unnecessary to issue notice to the respondents. 3. The second respondent seems to have filed Exts.P2 and P3, one to set aside the ex parte decree and the other to condone the delay in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree. There is no reason to apprehend that the court should not take up the petitions immediately and disposed of the of. In the meanwhile, the decree holder moved a petition and it is for the petitioner to approach the court below and to get appropriate orders. Exercising WPC.9982/2010. 3 jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, it may not be proper for this court to stall the consideration of Ext.P4. In the result, this petition is disposed of directing the 1st Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam to take up Exts.P2 and P3 petitions and dispose them of as early as possible at any rate within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.