IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2009 / 16TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 18805 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24/03/2009 IN EA 524/08 IN EP 262/04 IN OS.676/2002 of ADDL.M.C.,KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- SURESH KUMAR, ALACKALPARAMPIL, ARREEPARAMBU, MANARACADU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. K.J. JOSEPH, AYMANAMKUNNATH, AREEPARAMBU KARA, MANARCADU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. 2. ROSAMMA VARGHESE, PUTHUPARAMPIL, MALAKUNNA, KURICHI VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P(C)No.18805 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of July 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Petitioner is the judgment debtor in E.P 262/2004 in O.S 676/2002 on the file of the Additional Munsiff's Court, Kottayam. The decree was passed in a suit for money. Pursuant to the execution proceedings taken the property of the judgment debtor was brought to sale and the second respondent purchased the property in the auction. The second respondent is stated to be the daughter of the decree holder, first respondent. According to the petitioner the entire amount covered by the decree had been discharged by payment to the decree holder after sale and the decree holder is satisfied with such payment. His counsel has made an endorsement to that effect in a petition moved W.P(C)No.18805 OF 2009 2 by the judgment debtor before the court to record such payment. That application was dismissed for default. The judgment debtor filed another petition for setting aside the sale and that petition was also dismissed for default. A petition was moved to restore that application dismissed for default, on which notice has been ordered by the execution court. Petitioner seeks a direction from this court for early disposal of the application filed by him for restoring the application already moved for setting aside the sale which was dismissed for default. Ext.P3 is the copy of the application for reviewing the dismissal and restoring the application for setting aside the sale. 2. Having regard to the submissions made I find notice to respondents is not necessary and it is dispensed with. Without expressing any opinion W.P(C)No.18805 OF 2009 3 on the controversy or on the merits of the submissions made by the petitioner I direct the learned Munsiff to dispose Ext.P3 application as expeditiously as possible after service of notice to the opposite party and hearing them at any rate within three weeks from the date of completion of service. Writ petition is disposed as above. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE VDV