IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 11025 of 2010(O) -------------------------------------- [AS.NO.23/2009 OF DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD, OS.NO.97/2010 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, CHITTUR] .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- SARFUDHEEN, S/O.HANEEFA RAWTHER, AGED 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT RISWIN COMPLEX, POLLACHI ROAD, KOLLENGODE, CHITTUR TALUK. BY ADVS. MR.BINOY VASUDEVAN, SMT.P.G.BABITHA RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. K.MURALEEDHARAN, S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY, AGED 41 YEARS, BANK EMPLOYEE, ELAKOTTIL HOUSE, MUDAPALUR, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. SIVADASAN, S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR, POONATH HOUSE, KAVASSERY, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.BHAVADASAN, J. --------------------------------------- WP(C) No.11025 of 2010-O --------------------------------------- Dated 31st March 2010 Judgment In this Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the following relief is sought for : “a) Issue a writ commanding the District Court, Palakkad to defer the hearing of the appeal in AS No.23/09 till the disposal of OS No.97/10 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Chittur.” 2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in OS No.97/10 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Chittur. The suit was one for mandatory injunction and other reliefs. A copy of the plaint is produced as Ext.P1. It is stated that the fourth respondent in the suit by employing the first respondent herein had preferred OS No.98/06 before the Sub Court, Palakkad for realising a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the petitioner. The case of the first respondent herein was that on 25.12.2004, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was borrowed by the petitioner and a promissory note was jointly executed with an undertaking that the amount will be repaid with 12% interest. Since the amount was not WPC 11025/10 2 repaid, the suit was laid. The court below decreed the suit directing the petitioner herein to pay an amount of Rs,1,14,235/- to the first respondent. The aggrieved petitioner preferred an appeal as AS No.23/09 before the District Court, Palakkad. The petitioner submits that if he succeeds in Ext.P1 suit filed by him and a mandatory injunction is ordered, it will be a clinching evidence to establish that the promissory note relied on by the first respondent was a forged one. Therefore, the petitioner prays for the above relief. 3. The petitioner has not pointed out any statutory provision which enables this Court to stay the proceedings in the appeal. The petitioner may approach the Appellate Court for the said relief. Reserving his liberty to move the appellate Court, this Writ Petition is disposed of. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta WPC 11025/10 3 WPC 11025/10 4