IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2009 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 14421 of 2009(O) -------------------------- CMA.20/2008 of DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD OS.480/2005 of MUNSIFF COURT, CHITTUR (IA 827/2009) .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ MARIYAMMAL, W/O.SAMBATHKUMAR, RESIDING AT KARIDIPPARA, KUNNAM KATTUPATHI VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK. BY ADV. MR.P.R.VENKATESH RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. VELUCHAMI MUTHARASAN, S/O.ARUMUGHA MUTHARASAN, KARIDIPPARA, KUNNAMKATTUPATHI VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK. 2. SARASWATHY, W/O. VEERASWAMI, ...DO...DO... 3. DHARMARAJ, SON OF VELUCHAMI MUTHARASAN, RESIDING AT KARIDIPPARA, KUNNAM KATTUPATHI VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK. 4. VASANTHAMANI, W/O. PAZHANISWAMY, RESIDING AT ..DO.DO.. 5. SUMATHI, W/O.ANAND, RESIDING AT ..DO..DO.... THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.14421 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 2nd June, 2009 JUDGMENT The Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs: 1. To pass a direction, directing the Munsiff's Court, Chittur to keep the proceedings in FDIA 2619 of 2007 in abeyance till the disposal of AS 93 of 2009 and CMA 20 of 2009 on the files of the District Court, Palakkad. 2. Issue such other appropriate writ order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case. 2. Petitioner is the second defendant in O.S.No.480/05 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Chittur. Suit was instituted by the first respondent for partition and separate possession of his share. A preliminary decree was passed ex parte against the present petitioner. Petitioner moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. to set aside the ex parte decree with a petition to condone the delay. Those applications having been dismissed, he preferred an appeal before the District Court, Palakkad and that too with a petition for condonation of delay. Petitioner has also preferred an appeal challenging the ex parte decree on its merits. That appeal is also W.P.C.No.14421/09 - 2 - stated to have been filed with a petition to condone the delay. Meanwhile, the plaintiff-first respondent took steps for passing a final decree. The grievance canvassed by the petitioner is that if final decree is passed before his appeals preferred with condonation petitions are heard and disposed, it will cause him severe hardship and irreparable injury. He has approached the Munsiff Court, Chittur where the final decree application is pending seeking a stay of the final decree proceedings. The learned Munsiff ordered for stay of the final decree proceedings for a period of 15 days so as to enable the petitioner to get appropriate orders from the appellate court where his appeals are pending. He has thereafter preferred this Writ Petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution for an order to stay the proceedings on the final decree proceedings commenced on the application moved by the first respondent/plaintiff. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances, I find this is not a fit case where exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of this court is called for. It is seen, even after dismissal of the applications moved under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. for W.P.C.No.14421/09 - 3 - setting aside ex parte decree, the petitioner challenged those orders only after the time fixed by law as admittedly the appeals have been preferred with petitions to condone delay. I do not want to express any opinion regarding the merit of the applications and also that of the appeals. I find the reliefs prayed for in the petition, stay of the final decree proceedings, in the given facts of the case, is not permissible. The petitioner can approach the appellate court where his appeals are pending with delay condonation petitions, to seek an early enquiry on his petitions for condoning the delay and then on the basis of the orders thereunder, if the appeals are admitted, for appropriate orders over the final decree proceedings pending before the Munsiff Court. The Writ Petition is dismissed. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE