IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND MARCH 2010 / 11TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 6551 of 2010(O) ------------------------- E.P.NO.531/2001 IN OS.415/1990 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,PARAVUR .................... PETITIONER(S): CLAIM PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------------- V.P.BEHANAN, S/O.PAILY, VATTAKKAT HOUSE, VENGOLA, PERUMBAVOOR. BY ADV. MR.M.C.JOHN RESPONDENT(S): DECREE HOLDER & JUDGMENT DEBTOR: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. ALEX, S/O.PAULOSE, PATTALATTU HOUSE, VENGOLA, ARAKKAPPADY, PERUMBAVOOR. 2. PAUL ISSAC, KUZHIKATTIKUNNEL, VENGOLA, PERUMBAVOOR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: kss P. BHAVADASAN, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) No. 6551 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT In this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks for a direction to dispose of Ext.P4 application and till then, the amount deposited as per Ext.P3 shall not be disbursed. 2. O.S. No.415 of 1990 on the file of the Sub Court, N. Parur was instituted by the 1st respondent against the 2nd respondent for realization of Rs.30,000/- with interest. An agreement was entered into between them and on the basis of the above agreement, compromise decree was passed. E.P. No.236 of 1993 was filed for execution of the decree. The petitioner pointed out that he had to his credit the amount decreed in Arb.(O.P.) No.89 of 1987 and assigned by the 2nd respondent, lying in deposit before the Sub Court, Ernakulam. In execution of the decree, on the compromise entered into between respondents 1 and 2, the amount was sought to be attached. State has filed M.F.A. W.P.(C) No. 6551/10 2 No.224 of 1992 before this Court against the decree and hence, the 1st respondent could not appropriate the amount on account of the stay in M.F.A. 3. The petitioner filed E.A. No.735 of 1993, which was dismissed on technical grounds. Thereafter, the petitioner filed E.A. No.139 of 2003 for permitting him to represent the judgment debtor and to contest the Execution Petition. That was dismissed, against which the petitioner filed C.R.P. No. 63 of 2004 before this Court. The C.R.P. was allowed and the petitioner was permitted to represent the 2nd respondent in the Execution Petition. Thereafter, after nine years the 1st respondent filed E.P. No.531 of 2001 sought for attachment, which was allowed. 4. The petitioner filed E.A. No.1074 of 2004 for lifting the said attachment. That was rejected. W.P.(C) No. 13987 of 2009 was filed before this Court challenging the said order. This Court disposed of the writ petition directing the court below to decide the issue within 15 days. The court below dismissed E.A. No.1074 of 2004, which was W.P.(C) No. 6551/10 3 challenged by the petitioner in Ex.F.A. No.104 of 20094. That was disposed of without prejudice to the petitioner's right to pursue his contention. In the meanwhile, the 1st respondent moved an application to disburse the amount. That application is produced as Ext.P3. The petitioner filed an application for adjudication with regard to the amount and to ascertain whether there is excess execution. The complaint of the petitioner is that if the amount is disbursed without disposing of the said application, he will be put to irreparable loss and injury. Therefore, the petitioner seeks a direction to dispose of Ext.P4 application. 5. In the light of the order that is sought to be passed, notice to the respondents is not necessary. 6. The petitioner seeks for a direction to dispose of Ext.P4 application before disbursing the amount to the 1st respondent. 7. The prayer seems to be a reasonable one. In the result, there will be a direction to the court below to take up W.P.(C) No. 6551/10 4 Ext.P4 and dispose of the same in accordance with law as early as possible, at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and till then, the amount deposited as per Ext.P3 shall not be disbursed. The writ petition is disposed of as above. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. mn.