IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 5TH OCTOBER 2009 / 13TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 27755 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AS.336/2009 of DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR OS.204/2000 of M.C.,VADAKKANCHERRY .................... PETITIONER: --------------- VINISH, S/O.LATE VIJAYAN, THEKOOTTAYIL HOUSE, PERUMANNU DESOM, ERANELLOOR VILLAGE, TALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.M.R.SASITH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. VIJAYAN, S/O.PANTHARAYIL RAGHAVAN, THEKOOTTAYIL HOUSE, ERANELLOOR VILLAGE, TALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR. 2. VILASINI, W/O.THEKKOOTTAYIL VIJAYAN, THEKOOTTAYIL HOUSE, PERUMANNU DESOM, ERANELLOOR VILLAGE, TALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.27755 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “To issue a writ or order directing the Honourable District Court, Thrissur to consider and dispose the Appeal as A.S.No.336/2009 within a time limit framed by this Honourable and till that period all the proceedings in E.P.No.343/2004 in O.S.No.204/2000 pending before the Munsiff Court, Vadakkancherry shall be kept in abeyance.” 2. Petitioner set forth a claim in respect of the property attached for sale towards the decree debt due from the judgment debtor. The judgment debtor is none other than the mother of the petitioner. Parents of the petitioner, admittedly,had equal rights over a property having an extent of 13 cents. Father of the petitioner and husband of the judgment debtor is no more, and on his death his one half rights over the property devolved equally upon his legal heirs, wife and son (petitioner). Previously, the decree holder moved for attachment and sale of W.P.(C).No.27755 of 2009 - O 2 the property belonging to the judgment debtor. She resisted the execution claiming exemption under Section 60(1)(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure contending that she is an agriculturist. Accepting her claim for exemption the execution court directed for excluding the building under her occupation and appurtenant land from attachment and sale. The decree holder then moved for sale of the remaining property where one half right over 6.5 cents was obtained by the judgment debtor by way of inheritance from her husband along with her son. The claim put up by the son against the attachment was found against and dismissed by the court vide Ext.P4 order. Against Ext.P4 with a petition to condone delay, petitioner has preferred an appeal. Enquiry on the delay petition moved with the appeal is still pending is canvassed for the aforementioned relief sought for in the writ petition invoking the visitorial jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made and also the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondent/decree holder is warranted and hence it is dispensed with. W.P.(C).No.27755 of 2009 - O 3 4. From the submissions made and the exhibits tendered with the petition, I find the execution court is proceeding with the sale of the one half right over the 6.5 cents of land obtained by the judgment debtor by way of inheritance on the death of her husband, father of the petitioner. When that be so, I find no merit in the challenges canvassed in the writ petition by the claimant, son. Reserving his right to challenge whatever right available to him in the appeal, which is preferred with a petition for condoning delay, provided the delay is condoned, after enquiry, the writ petition is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-