IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2009 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 8571 of 2009(O) CMA.16/2008 OF II ADDL.DISTRICT COURT,ERNAKULAM PETITIONER: 1ST RESPONDENT ----------------------------- SOBHA, AGED 50 YEARS, W/O.AUGUSTINE, THAMMANATHUPARAMBU, POONITHURA, POONURUNNI, THAMMANAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.K.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT: APPELLANT ------------------------ SURENDRA SHENOY, AGED 49 YEARS, THAMMANATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, POONITHURA, PONNURUNNI, THAMMANAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) NO. 8571 OF 2009 O ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 18th March, 2009 JUDGMENT The respondent filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the preliminary decree and the final decree passed exparte. The trial court dismissed those applications. C.M.A.Nos.16 and 17 of 2008 were filed before the II Additional District Court, Ernakulam, challenging the order passed by the trial court. The C.M.Appeals were dismissed. 2. Pending appeal, the Execution Petition was not being proceeded with. After the dismissal of the C.M.Appeals, the writ petitioner moved the executing court for revival of the Execution Petition. The respondent filed an application before the District Court to stay the execution proceedings till certified copies of the judgment in C.M.A.Nos.16 and 17 of 2008 are issued. The District Court allowed the prayer made by the respondent and granted stay till certified copies of the judgments in C.M.A.Nos.16 and 17 of 2008 are issued to the respondent. The petitioner challenges in this Writ Petition the order of stay passed by the District Court . W.P.(C) NO.8571 OF 2009 :: 2 :: 3. The order passed by the District Court is not produced. The grievance of the petitioner/decree holder is that before passing the order of stay, no notice was issued to her and the court below was not justified in exercising the discretion in favour of the respondent. 4. I do not think that a grave illegality was committed by the District Court. The District Court passed a judgment. That was against the respondent. He applied for copy. Copy was not supplied. Meanwhile, when execution proceedings were proceeded with, the respondent applied to the District Court to keep in abeyance the execution proceedings till certified copy of the judgment passed by the District Court is issued. The request made by the respondent was just and reasonable. The court below thought it fit to grant an order of stay. I do not think that it is necessary to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order of stay passed by the District Court. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/