IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2008 / 29TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 30545 of 2008(J) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN EP 39/06 IN OS.216/2005 of MUNSIFF COURT, PEERUMEDU. AS NO.27/2006 OF SUB COURT, KATTAPPANA. .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- JOSE MATHEW, S/O.P.Z.MATHEW, 51 YEARS R/AT.PAYIKKATTUVAYALIL, MLAMALAKARA, MANJUMALA VILLAGE, PEERMADE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.AGINOV MATHAPPAN SMT.K.SHERIN MOHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. P.J.THOMAS, S/O.THOMAS, 61 YEARS R/AT.PUTHIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE,VELLARAMKUNNUKARA, KUMILI VILLAGE, PEERMADE TALUK. 2. ALICE THOMAS, W/O.THOMAS, 53 YEARS R/AT.PUTHIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, VELLARAMKUNNUKARA, KUMILI VILLAGE, PEERMADE TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.30545 of 2008 J -------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of October, 2008. JUDGMENT Heard. 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.216 of 2003 on the file of the Munsiff’s Court, Peermade. As per judgment and decree dated 23.3.2006 his prayer for recovery of possession of plaint C schedule was allowed but, prayer for right of easement over plaint B schedule was disallowed. Petitioner has filed A.S.No.27 of 2006 in the Sub Court, Kattappana against rejection of the prayer regarding right of easement. Respondents preferred a cross-objection in that appeal against that part of the decree relating to recovery of possession of plaint C schedule. Petitioner, claiming that there was no stay from the appellate court, filed E.P.No.36 of 2006 for execution of that part of decree in his favour. His grievance is that the execution petition is not being disposed of. Instead, it is unnecessarily being adjourned. 3. There is no reason or necessity to issue any direction regarding early disposal of the execution petition. Petitioner can make a request to that effect to the learned Munsiff. If there is no stay of execution from the appellate court and if steps are otherwise complete, it is open to the petitioner to request the learned Munsiff to expedite disposal of the execution petition. If requested in that line, learned Munsiff will consider that request and pass WP(C) No.30545/2008 2 appropriate orders. With the above observation, Writ Petition is closed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. cks