IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2010 / 28TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 1270 of 2010(O) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03/12/2009 IN IA 3776/09 IN AS.106/2009 of SUB COURT, TIRUR OS.19/2007 of MUNSIFF COURT, TIRUR .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER: --------------------------------------------- MOIDEEN, S/O.ABDURAHIMANKUTTY, PACHATTIRI AMSOM, PARAVANNA DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------------- KURIYEDATH VELAYUDHAN, S/O.KAKKU, PACHATTIRI AMSOM DESOM, POST PACHATTIRI, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.1270 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of January 2010 ---------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Petitioner is the defendant in a suit for money in which a decree was passed against him. He preferred an appeal before the Sub Court, Tirur impeaching the correctness of the decree. An application to stay the execution of the decree was also moved in that appeal. Appeal was admitted and taken on file and in the stay petition the court directed for deposit of the decreed amount or to furnish security within a month as a condition precedent for staying operation of the decree. After expiry of that period, petitioner moved an application seeking extension of two weeks time to comply with the order. That application was dismissed vide Ext.P5 order. propriety and correctness of Ext.P5 order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondent is necessary and hence it is dispensed with. The appeal itself would become infructuous if the decree is executed during its pendency W.P.(C).No.1270 OF 2010 Page numbers and the petitioner/appellant is prepared to comply with the direction to stay the operation of the decree if two weeks time is granted by this court is the submission of the counsel. Considering the submissions made, I direct the court below to accept the deposit of the decree amount or security, as the case may be, in compliance of its order passed on the stay petition if it is complied within two weeks from the date of this judgment. In case the petitioner/appellant complies the condition imposed by the court within two weeks, the time granted under Ext.P5 order of the court shall be deemed as having been extended by two weeks from the date of this judgment. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent has already moved for executing the decree and a warrant has been issued by the execution court(Munsiff Court, Tirur). There will be a direction to the execution court to keep in abeyance the execution of the decree for a period of two weeks from the date of this judgment. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed. Hand over a copy of the judgment to the learned counsel for the petitioner and send a copy to the Sub Court and Munsiff Court, Tirur forthwith. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// vdv P.A TO JUDGE