IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 24TH OCTOBER 2011 / 2ND KARTHIKA 1933 OP(C).No. 3415 of 2011(O) ----------------------- EP 8/2011 IN O.S NO. 697/2008 OF SUB COURT, KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER'S: ---------------------- 1. PENNAMMA ANTONY @ MARY, KOKKATTU HOUSE, PALLIPPURATHUSSERY P.O., VAIKOM VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK. 2. K.A.AUGUSTINE, THALIYATH & COMPANY, CORPORATION BUILDING, N.H.JUNCTION, VYTTILA P.O., COCHIN. BY ADVS. SRI. A.K. HARIDAS SRI. JAYAKRISHNA MUTHUKULAM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. P.S. JOSEPH, S/O.P.C.SEBASTIAN, PALLIPPADAM HOUSE, EDAPPALLY P.O., EDAPPALLY NORTH VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 024. 2. JOSEPH K.A, KOKKATTU HOUSE, PALLIPPURATHUSSERY P.O., VAIKOM-686 141. 3. KURIAKOSE K.A, KOKKATTU HOUSE, THURAVOOR P.O.,THURAVOOR VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK-688 573. BY THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- OP(C).No. 3415 of 2011(O) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE EP NO.8/2011 IN OS NO 697/08 OF THE SUB COURT, KOTTAYAM EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IA NO.1001/2011 FOR SETTING ASIDE THE EXPARTE DECREE EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING EXT.P3 PETITIONER EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION TO STAY THE EXECUTION PROCEEDINGS TILL THE DISPOSAL OF THE PETITION FOR SETTING ASIDE THE EXPARTE DECREE RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P(C).No.3415 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 24th day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioners are judgment debtors 1 and 2 in E.P.No.8 of 2011 in O.S.No.697 of 2008 of the Court of learned Sub Judge, Kottayam. First respondent has obtained a decree for specific performance of an agreement for sale against petitioners and respondents 2 and 3. First respondent sought execution of that decree. At that stage, petitioners/judgment debtors 1 and 2/defendants 1 and 2 filed Exts.P3 and P4, applications to set aside the ex parte decree against them and condone the delay of 393 days in filing that application. They also filed Ext.P5, application in the executing court to stay further proceedings against them until Exts.P3 and P4, applications are disposed of. 2. Learned counsel submits that disposal of Exts.P3 to P5, applications are being delayed for the reason that respondents 2 and 3 have not appeared. According to the learned counsel, notice to respondents 2 and 3 on Exts.P3 to P5, applications is not required since as per the decree the direction is to execute the sale deed with respect to the shares petitioners and respondents 2 and 3 have in the suit property and as such, O.P(C).No.3415 of 2011 -: 2 :- nothing prevents the first respondent from executing the decree as against shares of respondents 2 and 3. That respondents 2 and 3 have not appeared in Exts.P3 to P5, applications need not detain the learned Sub Judge from disposing of the said applications, it is contended. 3. It is open to the petitioners to impress upon learned Sub Judge their contention that the decree is executable as against the shares of respondents 2 and 3 and that so far as that part of the decree stand, for setting aside the ex parte decree against petitioners junction of respondents 2 and 3 is not required. I do not intend to give any direction to the learned Sub Judge in that regard. Learned Sub Judge after hearing petitioners on the question shall pass appropriate orders in that regard. 4. In the circumstances stated by learned counsel, I am inclined to direct learned Sub Judge to expedite disposal of Exts.P3 to P5, applications. Resultantly this original petition is disposed of directing the learned Sub Judge to expedite disposal of Exts.P3 to P5, applications having regard to the grievance of petitioners. (THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-