IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2009 / 10TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 16913 of 2009(O) ------------------------------------ AS.123/2008 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT-I,MAVELIKKARA OS.306/2006 of MUNSIFF COURT,CHENGANNUR .................... PETITIONERS: -------------------- 1. RAMESH, PANAMOOTTIL, KEEZHCHERIMEL, CHENGANNUR. 2. JAYA LAKSHMI, WIFE OF RAMESH, OF DO. BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. RAVEENDRAN NAIR, USHANILAYAM VEETTIL, ANGADADICKAL SOUTH PO, CHENGANNUR VILLAGE. 2. RATNAMMA, W/O. OF RAVEENDRAN NAIR, OF DO. DO. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: dkr S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 16913 OF 2009 O ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 1st day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: (i) call for the records pertaining to Ext.P4 order and the same may be set aside. (ii) direct the learned Sub Judge, Chengannur to hear and dispose of Ext.P1 as expeditiously as possible and grant stay of the execution proceedings. 2. Petitioners are the defendants in OS.306/06 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Chengannur. The above suit is one for declaration and for injunction, both mandatory and prohibitory. Suit after trial was decreed in favour of the respondents/ plaintiffs. Against the decree and judgment, the petitioners preferred an appeal with a petition to condone delay. Meanwhile plaintiffs/ decree holders moved for executing the decree. At that stage, the present writ petition was filed seeking the reliefs aforementioned invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioners. At the time WPC.16913/09 : 2 : of hearing, it is submitted the appeal preferred with the petition to condone delay was also dismissed for default and petitioners have filed an application for restoration of the appeal and that too was dismissed for default. The learned counsel seeks breathing time to take appropriate steps against the order dismissing his appeal as well as the application moved for restoring the appeal dismissed for default. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find that some indulgence is called for. The execution court is directed to keep in abeyance delivery for a period of two weeks from the date of this order, and proceed with further steps in execution after the expiry of the above period if there is no stay prohibiting continuance of the execution proceedings including the order of delivery from any superior forum. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is closed. Sd/- (S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE) aks