IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2010 / 31ST ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 6272 of 2010(O) ------------------------- EP.25/2009 IN S 97/2008 of SUB COURT,NEYYATTINKARA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- SUNIL KUMAR, S/O.CHELLAPPAN NADAR, EALI COTTAGE, OPPOSITE TO MOOVERIKKARA L.P.SCHOOL, KUNNATHUKAL, P.O., NEYYATTINKARA. BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.V.VIJULAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- RAJU, S/O.DEASAYYAN NADAR, RAJAGIRI, PANAYARAKONAM, NARANI, KUNNATHUKAL, NEYYATTINKARA. ADV. SRI.V.SURESH SRI.G.SUDHEER KARAKONAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO.6272/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF IA NO.219 /2010 IN OS 97/2008 DATED 25.1.2010 OF SUB COURT, NEYYATTINKARA EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF IA NO.220/2010 IN OS 97/2008 DATED 25.1.2010 OF SUB COURT NEYYATTINKARA EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 15.2.2010 IN OS 97/2008 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN EP 25/2009 IN OS 97/2008 OF SUB COURT, NEYYATTINKARA THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.6272 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2010. JUDGMENT Defendant in O.S.No.97 of 2008 and judgment debtor in E.P.No.25 of 2009 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Neyyattinkara is the petitioner before me. He has suffered an exparte decree for payment of money to the respondent. That was followed by Exts.P1 and P2, applications to set aside exparte decree and to condone the delay of 458 days in filing that application. Those applications are pending consideration before learned Sub Judge. In the meantime respondent launched execution of the decree and ten cents belonging to the petitioner was brought up for sale as per Ext.P4, order which is under challenge in this Writ Petition. It is agreed that on 20.02.2010 sale of property pursuant to Ext.P4, order was conducted while this Writ Petition is filed only on 23.02.2010. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that what is discernible from Ext.P4 is only that there was an order to “issue proclamation for sale 20.2.2010”. However it is not disputed before that sale was conducted on 20.02.2010. Learned counsel then requests that further proceedings in E.P.No.25 of 2009 may be kept in abeyance until Exts.P1 and P2, applications are disposed of. Counsel for respondent would contend that delay involved is huge, there is no sufficient explanation for that and that attempt is to protract the proceedings in execution. WP(C) No.6272/2010 2 2. Ext.P4, order is not very specific. Though challenge in this Writ Petition is to Ext.P4, order and as both sides agree sale was conducted on 20.02.2010 having considered the request of petitioner I do not consider it necessary to dismiss the Writ Petition as infructuous. Though sale is conducted further proceedings are to be completed in E.P.No.25 of 2009. In the circumstances learned Sub Judge, Neyyattinkara is directed to keep in abeyance further proceedings in E.P.No.25 of 2009 for a period of one month from this day. Learned Sub Judge is also directed to dispose of Exts.P1 and P2, applications if preliminary steps are over within the said period of one month. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks