IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 13TH MAY 2010 / 23RD VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 14852 of 2010(O) --------------------------------------- [E.P. NO. 72/2009 IN OS.NO.140/2008 OF THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM] .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- KERALA STATE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY CARMEL CENTRE BUILDINGS, 3RD FLOOR, BANERJI ROAD, KOCHI-18. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN. RESPONDENT: --------------------- CHERUPUSHPAM ASHRAM, ETTUMANOOR, THELLAKOM.P.O., KOTTAYAM-16, REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER AND MANAGER REV. FR. JOSEPH ARACKAL OCD, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.A.J.CHERIAN,RES:AT ST.TERESAS MONSTRY,BANERJI ROAD.,VERNACULAR,THE MANAGER OF CARMEL BUILDINGS& CARMEL CENTRE, ERNAKULAM. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/05/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.S.GOPINATHAN,J. -------------------------- W.P.C.No.14852 of 2010 --------------------------- Dated this the 13th May, 2010 O R D E R The respondent obtained an ex parte decree in O.S.No.140/08 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Ernakulam for recovery of possession of the plaint scheduled building let out to the writ petitioner. Execution petition as E.P.No.72/09 was filed. By Ext.P9 order dated 08/04/2010, delivery was ordered to be effected on 18/05/2010. While the execution petition was pending consideration, the writ petitioner filed Exts.P2,P3,P4 and P7 petitions seeking to set aside the ex parte decree, to condone the delay in filing petition to set aside ex parte decree and to stay the execution of the decree. Before passing any orders in those petitions, Ext.P9 order was passed. Now the writ petitioner seeks an order to quash Ext.P9 order and also to direct the lower court to consider and dispose of Exts.P2 to P4 and P7 petitions. W.P..C.No.14852/10 2 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is prepared to deliver the building provided some breathing time is given. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, 50 persons are employed by the petitioner and working in the decree scheduled building and earnestly searching for alternate accommodation. In the event delivery is effected immediately, it would affect the entire working of the establishment. 3. Having heard either side, I find bona fides and merit in the submission and it would be just and appropriate to grant some time to vacate. In the above circumstances, the delivery of the decree scheduled building shall stand adjourned to 18/09/2010 provided the writ petitioner files an affidavit on or before 18/5/2010 before the Execution Court undertaking to deliver the decree scheduled building on 18/09/2010 without any demur. The writ petitioner is at liberty to surrender the building even before 18/09/2010 in the event writ petitioner could arrange alternate accommodation on any W.P..C.No.14852/10 3 earlier date. In event the writ petitioner fails to file the affidavit as above, this writ petition would stand dismissed. No costs. P.S.GOPINATHAN,JUDGE jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge W.P..C.No.14852/10 4