IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE FRIDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2009 / 10TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 28659 of 2007(J) -------------------------- AS.54/2007 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, VADAKARA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.C.KHADER, S/O MAMMU, PUNATHIL CHOODIKKOTTA DESOM, MAHE, PONDICHERI STATE, REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, V.P.SUBAIDA, D/O ABOO, AZHIYOOR AMSOM AND CHAMBALA DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.MUHAMMED SALAHUDHEEN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- P.C.MAMMOO, S/O AMBOOTTY HAJI, RESIDING AT FATHIMA MANZIL, AZHIYOOR AMSOM AND CHAMBALA DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK AND KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX;- EXT.P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER IN IA. NO.433 OF 2006 IN AS. NO.54 OF 2007 OF ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, VATAKARA. //TRUE COPY// PS TO JUDGE. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ----------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No. 28659 OF 2007 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T Heard Mr.Muhammad Salahudheen, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.C.P.Peethambaran, learned counsel for respondent. 2. Under challenge in this writ petition is Ext.P1 order by which the learned District Judge has dismissed I.A. No. 433 of 2006 filed by the petitioner seeking condonation of the delay of 758 days caused in the matter of filing the appeal. Even though Mr.Salahudheen addressed me very strenuously I am not persuaded to hold that the jurisdiction which was vested with the learned District Judge in the matter of condonation of delay has been wrongly exercised. Moreover, as pointed out by Mr.Peethambaran consequent on the passage of Ext.P1, A.S. No. 54 of 2007 was rejected by the learned District Judge. The order rejecting the appeal has attained finality. That order is yet to be challenged. Sri.Peethambaran further submitted that in execution of the decree, the property which had been charged for the decree debt was sold in execution and purchased by the decree holder and that on the strength of the sale certificate the petitioner has been dispossessed also. The submission of Mr.Peethambaran that the petitioner has been dispossessed of the property was stoutly refuted WP(C)N0.28659/07 -2- by Mr.Salahudheen. According to Mr.Salahudheen, the property has not been delivered over and the petitioner continues to retain possession of the property. Having regard to the rival submissions I am of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of by issuing the following directions: The Sub Court, Vatakara which was seizin of the execution proceedings in O.S. 57 of 1999 will verify whether in execution of the decree in that case, the decree schedule property belonging to the petitioner is already delivered over to the respondent. If the verification reveals that delivery has not been taken place so far, the learned Sub Judge will refer the execution petition to one of the 'Adalaths' being conducted under the aegis of the Taluk Legal Service Authority so that the parties can explore the possibility of a settlement. If the enquiry reveals that delivery has been effected, no further action need be taken by the learned Sub Judge. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) ksv/