IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 20TH MAY 2010 / 30TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 15394 of 2010(O) -------------------------- AS.137/2010 of DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR OS.532/2007 of MUNSIFF COURT,VADAKKANCHERRY .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAJAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, ERAVATHODI THERUVU, THIRUVILWAMALA DESOM, KANIYARKODU DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT SRI.RANJIT BABU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- NADARAJAN, S/O.THANEER PANTHAL VEETTIL GOPALAN, MATHOOR AMSOM, PALLANCHATHANNUR DESOM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.15394 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of May, 2010. JUDGMENT Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.532 of 2007 of the court of learned Munsiff, Wadakkancherry and appellant in A.S.No.137 of 2010 of the court of learned District Judge, Thrissur. Respondent has obtained a decree for recovery of possession with mesne profits and damages. After 422 days, petitioner preferred A.S.No.137 of 2010 with Ext.P3, application for condonation of delay. There is also an application for stay of the operation of decree, Ext.P4. According to the petitioner, respondent has initiated execution proceedings and the execution petition (E.P.No.227 of 2009) is posted on this day (20.05.2010) for effecting delivery. But on account of pendency of Ext.P3, application to condone delay petitioner was not able to get an order of stay from the District Court in A.S.No.137 of 2010. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that Ext.P3, application is posted on 28.05.2010 for return of notice. He therefore prayed that the power of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution may be exercised to keep the execution proceedings in abeyance for a short time to enable petitioner to seek remedy in A.S.No.137 of 2010. Learned counsel submits that Ext.B1, agreement produced by the petitioner in O.S.No.532 of 2007 would show that respondent had taken a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- from the petitioner on condition of returning the same on petitioner vacating the building in the suit property and that respondent though admitted his signature in Ext.B1 has denied execution of the agreement. Learned counsel submits that petitioner has valid contentions to be raised in the appellate court and if before the WP(C) No.15394/2010 2 application to condone delay and the application for stay are considered by the learned District Judge the decree is executed petitioner will be put to untold miseries. 2. Till the delay is condoned, appellate court cannot pass any interim order in the appeal. As submitted by learned counsel Ext.P3, application to condone delay is posted on 28.05.2010 for return of notice. Hence the question of condoning delay and considering Ext.P4, application for stay would arise only after 28.05.2010. If in the meantime petitioner is evicted from the building in the suit property pursuant to the decree it is needless to say that petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and injury. In the circumstances I am persuaded to direct the executing court to keep delivery proceedings in abeyance for a period of two weeks from this day. Resultantly, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the learned Munsiff, Wadakkancherry to keep the delivery proceedings in E.P.No.227 of 2009 in O.S.No.532 of 2007 of that court in abeyance for a period of two weeks from this day. This judgment is pronounced at 12 p.m. Registry shall immediately communicate gist of the judgment to the learned Munsiff, Wadakkancherry. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks