IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2009 / 15TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 15125 of 2009(O) --------------------------------------- OS.180/2006 of MUNSIFF COURT, KOCHI .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------------- 1. KUNJUMOL, AGED 50 YEARS, W/O.JAYASENAN, POYATH HOUSE, PALLURUTHY KADEBAGAM, RAMESWARAM VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK. 2. JAYAESH, S/O.JAYASENAN, POYATH HOUSE, PALLURUTHY KADEBAGAM, RAMESWARAM VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK. BY ADV. MR.A.X.VARGHESE MR.A.V.JOJO RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ V.P.JOSEPH, S/O.PAULOSE, AGED 58 YEARS, VADASSERI HOUSE, PALLURUTHY KADEBAGAM, RAMESWARAM VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK. BY ADV. MR.SABU GEORGE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/07/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C)NO.15125 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of July 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Petitioners who suffered a decree of mandatory and prohibitory injunction passed against them resisted the execution of that decree contending that they have preferred an appeal with a delay petition and till the enquiry on the delay is over the execution of the decree has to be kept in abeyance. The relief so claimed by the judgment debtors was turned down by the execution court against which the writ petition is filed invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of Code of Constitution of India. 2. I heard the counsel on both sides. The order passed by the court below negativing the W.P.(C)NO.15125 OF 2009 2 request of the petitioners to keep the execution in abeyance has not been produced with the petition. Further more the case advanced that an appeal, with a petition to condone delay, has been filed to challenge the decree sought to be executed is not a ground to keep in abeyance the execution of a validly obtained decree. If at all the delay is condoned and appeal entertained and the decree is reversed by the appellate court it is open to the petitioner to seek restitution under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure. There is no merit in the petition, and it is dismissed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE VDV