IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2011 / 7TH SRAVANA 1933 OP(C).No. 2426 of 2011(O) ------------------------ AS.157/2010 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT-I, MAVELIKKARA ............... PETITIONER / PLAINTIFF : ---------------------------------------- DINESH.K.P., S/O.PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, KOYICKAL HOUSE, NANGIARKULANGARA, PALLIPADU, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK. BY ADVS. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) RESPONDENTS / DEFENDANTS 3 AND 1 : ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION, PANAMPALLY AVENUE, COCHIN-36. 2. DEEPA SAJEEV, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, W/O.K.K.SAJEEV, PROPRIETOR OF SAID FUELS AT NANGIARKULANGARA, KOYICKAL PEEDIKAYIL, AALA VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR - 687 617. BY ADV. SRI. E.K. NANDAKUMAR THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON ON 29/07/2011, ALONG WITH OPC NO. 2455 OF 2011 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- OP(C).No. 2426 of 2011(O) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE COMMON DECREE DATED 22.2.2010 IN OS NO. 242 AND 243 OF 2007 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, HARIPAD. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.6.2011 OF THE APPELLATE COURT AS NO. 157 OF 2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P(C).Nos.2426 and 2455 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 29th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT These original petitions are filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.Nos.243 of 2007 and 242 of 2007 of the Court of learned Munsiff, Haripad. Petitioners obtained a decree for recovery of rent arrears from defendants 1 to 3. First respondent/third defendant alone challenged the judgment and decree in the cases in A.S.No.157 of 2010 and 156 of 2010, respectively of the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Mavelikkara. The first respondent applied for stay of execution of decree in both the appeals. Learned Additional District Judge passed Ext.P2, order (in both the cases) that “all execution proceedings under the decree under challenge is stayed until further orders till the disposal of the I.A”. Grievance of petitioners is that though the decree enables them to recover rent arrears from defendants 1 and 2 as well and only the first respondent/third defendant has preferred the appeals, learned Additional District Judge granted stay of execution of the entire decree. Hence, petitioners are not able to proceed against the non appealing defendants even. I have heard learned counsel on both sides. O.P(C).Nos.2426 and 2455 of 2011 -: 2 :- 2. If the appeal against judgments and decrees are preferred only by the first respondent/third defendant it is open to the petitioners to request learned Additional District Judge to modify the order of stay in the appropriate manner facilitating execution of decrees against the non appealing defendants. When that remedy is available to the petitioners there is no reason to interfere in the matter in exercise of the power under Art.227 of the Constitution. Resultantly these original petitions are disposed of without prejudice to the right of petitioners to request learned Additional District Judge, Mavelikkara to modify the orders of stay granted by the learned Additional District Judge as pleaded by petitioners. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-