IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2009 / 31ST BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 25830 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.137/1992 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ATTINGAL .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- LAILA BEEVI @ LAILA BUHARI, KUZHIYIL VEEDU, KANIYAPURAM DESOM, PALLIPPURAM VILLAGE, REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER A.HAKKIM. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. N.SUMINA @ SUMMAYYA, D/O.NAZEER, PANDAKASALA VEEDU, PERUMMATHURA, SARKARA VILLAGE. 2. N.SUDHEER, S/O.NAZEER, PANDAKASALA VEEDU, PERUMMATHURA, SARKARA VILLAGE. ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.25830 OF 2009 (O) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the 11th judgment debtor in E.P.No.39 of 2009 in O.S.No.137 of 1992 on the file of the Sub Court, Attingal. The decree executed in the above case was passed in a suit for declaration of title, setting aside of document and recovery of possession. Admittedly, the 11th judgment debtor purchased the portion of the suit property during the pendency of the suit. She had preferred an appeal against the decree passed in favour of the plaintiffs, but was unsuccessful. While the execution proceedings continue, during the pendency of the appeal preferred by her, she was set ex parte. The grievance canvassed by the petitioner/ 11th judgment debtor is that the order setting her ex parte was passed by the court by mistake with reference to another judgment debtor, and she was represented by a counsel. Whatever that be, the application moved by her for setting WPC.25830/09 2 aside that order was also dismissed by the execution court later vide Ext.P5 order. In passing Ext.P5 order dated 22.8.2009, the execution court had taken note that the appeal preferred by her against the decree had already been dismissed by this Court on 13.8.2009. She was set ex parte at a time when her first appeal was pending before this Court. She had also filed objection to the execution petition. 2. Notice of the petition was given to the respondents/decree holders. After hearing the counsel on both sides, I find an opportunity should be given to the 11th judgment debtor to canvass her objections. I am inclined to grant her such an opportunity since she was declared ex parte at a time when her appeal preferred against the decree was pending before this Court. Setting aside Exts.P5, P7 and P8 orders, I direct the court below to hear and dispose of the objections raised by the 11th judgment debtor against the execution of the decree, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I am not expressing any opinion on the merits of the objections, which WPC.25830/09 3 according to the learned counsel for the decree holders, are totally devoid of any merit especially in view of the fact that she was a pendentelite purchaser, and her appeal preferred against the decree raising whatever objections available had been found against by this Court. I make it clear that the execution court has to hear and dispose of the objections within the time limit stipulated above. Writ petition is closed. Handover a copy of the judgment to the counsel of both sides and send a copy of the judgment to the concerned execution court forthwith. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp