IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 31422 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.151/2008 of MUNSIFF COURT, ALATHUR .................... PETITIONER: --------------- BEENA AGED 22 YEARS, D/O.LATE CHANDRAN, KUNDRATHUR MAIN ROAD, GARUGAMPAKKAM, KANCHIPURAM DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU STATE BY ADV. MR.JOHNSON P.JOHN MR.BABY MATHEW RESPONDENT: --------------- RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O. CHAMUNNI, VEMBALLOOR, MANJALLOOR, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.31422 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.151 of 2008 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Alathur. Ext.P1 is the copy of the plaint in the above suit. In the above suit, among other reliefs plaintiff sought a decree of perpetual prohibitory injunction to restrain the fourth defendant in the suit from taking delivery of the plaint property in execution of the decree passed in O.S.No.41 of 1994. The main relief sought in the above suit was for setting aside a registered document to the extent of 1/12th share of the plaintiff over the property covered by that document. That suit after trial was dismissed. Writ petition is filed seeking issue of a writ/direction/order to the court below to furnish copies of the judgment and decree in the above suit and till then to keep in abeyance the delivery of the property in the execution proceedings of O.S.No.41 of 1994 in respect of which injunction had been sought by the petitioner against the fourth defendant in the suit. 2. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and W.P.(C).No.31422 of 2009 - O 2 circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondent is necessary, and it is dispensed with. 3. Petitioner has got interest over 1/12th share in the property covered by the decree passed in O.s.No.41 of 1994 by the Munsiff Court, Alathur, and so much so, the execution of that decree has to be kept in abeyance till she is given a chance to prefer an appeal against the dismissal of her suit filed as O.S.No.151 of 2008 before the same court in which she had claimed a decree of perpetual injunction against the execution of the decree in the previous suit, is the relief canvassed. Though she has applied for certified copies of the judgment and decree in her suit, it has not been furnished is the cause shown for keeping in abeyance execution of the decree in O.S.No.41 of 1994. Suit filed by the petitioner challenging the execution of O.S.No.41 of 1994 on whatever grounds available to her, after trial, had been dismissed. To enable the petitioner to continue the litigation, the execution of the decree passed in the previous suit cannot be stayed or kept in abeyance. In case her right is vindicated in appeal, if any, preferred against the dismissal of her suit, she can W.P.(C).No.31422 of 2009 - O 3 apply for restitution as provided by law, provided she has got any right over the property as claimed. Writ petition lacks merit, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-