IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2009 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 31048 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AS.10/2009 of ADL.SUB COURT, THALASSERY OS.583/2007 of PRL.M.C.,KANNUR .................... PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENT: ------------------------- C.K.SAVITHRI, W/O. LATE.LAKSHMANAN AGED 64 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, RESIDING AT SANDEEP NIVAS, P.O.CHOVVA, KANNUR-6. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAMKUMAR NAMBIAR RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- K.SANTHA, D/O. JANAKI, DOMESTIC WORKER, RESIDING AT K.P.XII/382 KURUVOTTUMOOLA, KOTTIYATTOOR AMSOM DESOM KANNUR DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.31048 OF 2009 (O) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking mainly the following relief: i. to call for the records in I.A.No.972/2009 in A.S.No.10/2009 of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Thalassery in O.S.No.583/2007 of the Principal Munsiff's Court, Kannur and to quash the Order dated 25.9.2009 in I.A.No.972/2009 in A.S.No.10/2009 of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Thalassery in O.S.No.583/2007 of the Principal Munsiff's Court, Kannur vide Ext.P5 in the interests of justice. 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.583 of 2007 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Kannur. Suit was one for recovery of possession, and the respondent, the defendant. Suit was WPC.31048/09 2 decreed. Challenging the decree and judgment, the respondent preferred an appeal and that appeal numbered as A.S.No.10 of 2009 is pending before the Additional Sub Court, Thalassery. An application for stay of execution of the decree moved by the respondent was granted by the appellate court overruling the objections canvassed by the petitioner/respondent in appeal that no stay can be granted, and if at all operation of the decree was stayed, the appellant should be directed to pay the sum fixed by the court for occupation of the building. Appellate court was not inclined to impose any such condition for staying the execution of the decree. Propriety and correctness of that order, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P5, is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the constitution of India. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondent is necessary, and hence, it is dispensed with. WPC.31048/09 3 Perusing Ext.P5 order with reference to the exhibits tendered in the writ petition, more particularly Ext.P1 judgment challenged in the appeal, I find that the respondent/appellant had disputed the title of the petitioner over the suit property. When that be the case, insistence by the petitioner for payment of a sum fixed by the court by the appellant till disposal of the appeal to stay the execution of the decree was not entertainable, and the condition so sought for by the appellant to stay the decree was rightly and correctly turned down by the appellate court. I do not find any impropriety or illegality in Ext.P5 order. Writ petition lacks merit, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp