IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2009 / 21ST SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 20395 of 2009(O) --------------------------------------- OS.30/2006 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, NORTH PARAVUR .................... PETITIONER(S): -------------------- 1. LALAN S/O.VASUDEVAN, KALATHIL, PARAVEETHARA MURI, PARAVOOR VILLAGE, REP.BY 2ND PETITIONER. 2. BESSY LALAN, S/O.LALAN, KALATHIL, PARAVEETHARA MURI, PARAVUR VILLAGE. BY ADV. MR.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J. MR.P.J.VINOD JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. HINDU DHARMEDHARANA SABHA, PARAVEETHARA MURI, PARAVUR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DIST. 2. PRADEEP KUMAR, S/O.KRISHNAN KUTTY, THOPPIL, PARAVEETHARA MURI, PARAVUR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DIST, SECRETARY, HINDU DHARMEDHARANA SABHA. 3. SIVADAS, S/O.KUNJAN, SANKARAMALIL, PARAVEETHARA MURI, PARAVUR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DIST, PRESIDENT, HINDU DHARMEDHARANA SABHA. 4. BHARATHAN, S/O.GANGATHARAN, KUTTIKATTU, PARAVEETHARA MURI, PARAVUR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DIST,. KHAJANJI, HINDU DHARMEDHARANA SABHA. 5. SECRETARY, PARAVUR CO-OPERATIVE BANK, E.1759, PARAVEETHARA MURI, PARAVUR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DIST. WP(C).No. 20395 of 2009(O) 6. SASIDARAN, S/O.VASUDEVAN, KALATHIL PAROOTHARA, PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DIST. R1 TO R4 BY ADV. SMT.S.KARTHIKA , MR.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN , MR.M.R.ANISON , SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI , MR.P.N.APPUKUTTAN, SMT.K.B.VEENA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 20395 of 2009(O) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUB JUDGE, PARAVOOR IN OS.30/06 DATED 31/07/2007. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE DECREE OF THE SUB JUDGE, NORTH PARAVOOR OS.30/06 DATED 31/07/2007. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS.30/2006 OF THE SUB JUDGE, NORTH PARAVOOR DATED 19/01/2006. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IS OS.30/2006 DTED 13/03/2006. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE I.A. NO.3782/2008 DATED 28/09/2008. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN IA.3782/08 DATED 16/01/2009. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA.3782/2008 DATED 10/06/2009. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C).No.20395 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of August 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs. i) Issue a writ of certiorari or such other writ, order or direction setting aside the order of the Principal Sub Judge, North Paravur dated 10/06/2009 in I.A No.3728 of 2008 in O.S No. 30 of 2006. ii) Award the cost of this proceedings. iii) Such other reliefs that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. W.P.(C).No.20395 OF 2009 Page numbers 2. Petitioners are the first and second defendants in O.S No. 3 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, North Paravur. Suit was one for specific performance and the respondents are the plaintiffs and third defendant. Suit was decreed. Ext.P2 is the copy of the decree. Ext.P2 decree provided for execution of a deed of conveyance in terms of the agreement by the petitioners / defendants within one month by which the decree holders/ plaintiffs were allowed to get a deed executed through court on discharging of or subject to the liability of third defendant, a cooperative bank. On default of the petitioners / defendants to execute the sale deed, decree holder approached the court below for execution of the decree. Ext.P7 order was passed by the court below directing the decree holders to deposit the amount in a nationalised bank and produce the bank W.P.(C).No.20395 OF 2009 Page numbers receipt. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P7 order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the learned counsel on both sides. On the submission made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented with reference to Ext.P7 order impugned in the petition I find this is not a fit case calling for interference by execution of the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court. There was inordinate delay on the part of the decree holders in applying for deposit of the sum to get the sale deed executed in terms of the decree is the main challenge raised to impeach the correctness of Ext.P7 order. Perusing Ext.P2 order, I find no time limit has been fixed by the court for deposit of the amount by the decree holder. What is seen W.P.(C).No.20395 OF 2009 Page numbers is that, on default of the judgment debtor to execute a sale deed in terms of the agreement within the time fixed the decree holder can move for execution of a sale deed through court subject to the liability of the third defendant bank. So the challenge now canvassed to resist the execution of the decree cannot be appreciated. The writ petition lacks merit, and it is dismissed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv