IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 7TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 28052 of 2010(O) -------------------------- EA NO.108/2010 IN EP NO.330/2009 IN OS.137/2009 of PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, CHERTHALA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.K.DINESAN, S/O.KESAVAN, AGED 43 YEARS, RESIDING IN PUNNACKAL HOUSE, PADINJATTUKARA NORTH MURI, KUTHIYATHODU VILLAGE, CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SRI.GEORGE MATHEW SRI.DIPU JAMES RESPONDENT(S): --------------- M/S.HOTEL AROOR RESIDENCY, 7/492, AROOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER TOMY JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 45 YEARS, CHERKOTT HOUSE, ARAKKUZHA, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. PIN - 686 672. ADV. SRI.V.L.SHENOY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C0 NO.28052/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JOINT COMPROMISE PETITION DATED 5.8.2009 WITH DECREE IN OS NO.137/2009 OF MUNSIFF COURT, CHERTHALA EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF EP NO.330/2009 IN OS 137/2009 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, CHETHALA DATED 30.11.2009 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION IN EP NO.330/2009 IN OS 137/2009 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, CHERTHALA DATED 29.3.2010 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF IA NO.1324/2010 IN OS 137/2009 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, CHERTHALA DATED 7.4.2010 EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF EA NO.108/2010 IN EP NO.330/2009 IN OS NO.137/2009 OF MUNSIFF COURT, CHERTHALA DATED 8.4.2010 EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN EA NO.108/2010 IN EP NO.330/2009 IN OS NO.137/2009 OF MUNSIFF COURT, CHERTHALA DATED 9.4.2010 EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF EA NO.208/.2010 IN OS NO.137/2009 OF MUNSIFF COURT, CHERTHALA DATED 31.8.2010 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(a) COPY OF DRAFT SALE DEED PRODUCED IN EP NO.330/2009 IN OS 137/2009 IN OS NO.137/2009 OF MUNSIFF COURT, CHERTHALA //TRUE COPY// THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.28052 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of September, 2010. JUDGMENT This Writ Petition is in challenge of Ext.P6, order on Ext.P5, application preferred by the petitioner in the executing court for stay of execution proceedings. It is not disputed that there is a compromise decree passed by the learned Munsiff, Cherthala which respondent wanted to execute. At that stage petitioner filed Ext.P4, application on the trial side to recall the compromise decree on various grounds. Petitioner filed Ext.P5, application in the executing court to stay execution proceedings which resulted in Ext.P6, order. It is contended that Ext.P6, order is not correct and it even goes into merit of Ext.P4, application to recall the compromise decree. Learned counsel for respondent contends that there is no justification in stalling execution of the compromise decree and on facts there is no reason why the compromise decree should be recalled. It is contended that objection raised to the executability of compromise decree in the execution side was rejected by the learned Munsiff as per Ext.P6, order dated 09.04.2010. 2. I do not find reason to interfere with Ext.P6, order refusing to grant stay of execution proceedings in the execution side . But the question whether Ext.P4, application is with merit or not is a matter which the court on the trial side has to decide. The observations if any made in Ext.P6, order cannot bind the claim made as per Ext.P4, application which has to be decided on its merit. WP(C) No.28052/2010 2 3. I stated that there is no reason to interfere with Ext.P6, order. But I make it clear that if so advised and if otherwise entitled it will be open to the petitioner to move appropriate application for stay of execution on the trial side where Ext.P4, application is pending and if any such application is preferred learned Munsiff shall pass appropriate orders considering the facts of the case and hearing respondent as well. It is directed that sale deed pursuant to the compromise decree shall not be executed for a period of ten days from this day. With the above observation Writ Petition is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks