IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2011 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1933 OP(C).No. 1008 of 2011(O) --------------------------------------- EP.NO. 62/2008 IN OS.NO.75/2006 of SUB COURT, VADAKARA .................... PETITIONER --------------------- PRASEED. R,S/O.LATE RAGHAVAN, AGED 48 YEARS, "SUDARSANA" CHOMPAL P.O.,VADAKARA TALUK,KOZHIKODE DIST BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN SRI.P.K.ABDURAHIMAN (POOLACKAL KARATCHAL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. C.H.SARALA, W/O.R.RAGHAVAN, EDAVANTAVIDA HOUSE, VADAKARA P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,PIN-673 101 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001 R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.C.VINCENT THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/11/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts OP(C)NO.1008/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE ORDER IN LOK ADALATH CASE NO.881/2007 P2 COPY OF THE COMPROMISE PETITION NO.IA.NO.690/07 IN OS.75/2006 OF VADAKARA SUB COURT. P3 COPY OF THE EXECUTION PETITION NO.EP 62/08 IN OS NO.75/06 OF VADAKARA SUB COURT. P4 COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 27/2/2009 IN EP.62/08 IN OS 75/06 OF VADAKARA SUB COURT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== O.P(C) No.1008 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 03rd day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner-plaintiff in O.S No.75 of 2006 of the Court of learned Sub Judge, Vadakara seeks a direction for expeditious disposal of E.P. No.62 of 2008 pending in that court. According to the petitioner, the dispute in the suit was referred to the Adalath which passed Ext.P1, award based on Ext.P2, compromise. Petitioner filed Ext.P3, E.P. No.62 of 2008 for execution of the award. From the submission of the learned counsel, it would appear that there was some mistakes in the name of petitioner in the award which, as directed by this Court was got corrected. Grievance of petitioner is that the execution petition is being posted on various dates, it was heard, but the matter has not been disposed of so far. 2. It would appear that the first respondent has filed counter challenging executability of the decree. Now that there is objection to executability of the decree, the executing court has to decide that objection and pass appropriate orders. The execution petition is of the year, 2008. In this O.P(C) No.1008 of 2011 -: 2 :- circumstances, learned Sub Judge, Vadakara is directed to dispose of the execution petition as early as possible, bearing in mind that it is a petition of the year, 2008. Original Petition is disposed of with the above direction. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. scl