IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2009 / 3RD MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 35112 of 2008(E) -------------------------------------------- OS.271/1993 of M.C., VADAKKANCHERRY .................... PETITIONER: MANI.K.K, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O.LATE KORAN, KODANY HOUSE, N.COLONY, CHOONDAL.P.O, 680508, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.X.VARGHESE SRI.A.V.JOJO RESPONDENT: BRAHMAKULAM ST.THOMAS CHURCH WELFARE SOCIETY, REP. BY ITS MANAGER/SECRETARY, BRAHMAKULAM DESOM, TAIKAD AMSOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. ADV. SRI.A.C.DEVASIA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. Balachandran, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C)No.35112 of 2008 E -------------------------- JUDGMENT Petitioner is the first judgment debtor in E.P.No.131/95 in O.S.No.271/93 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Wadakkancherry. In execution of the decree in the said suit, the property belonging to the second judgment debtor, who is the mother of the first judgment debtor, was sold in court auction for an amount of Rs.60,000/- on 20.2.1997. It is submitted that the purchaser is the decree holder themselves. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that after the sale on 20.2.1997, the second judgment debtor, who is the mother of the petitioner/first judgment debtor, died on 22.10.2003 and that even during her life time, the sister of the petitioner one Kuttimalu filed E.A.No.50/97 in E.P.No.131/95 aforesaid for setting aside the sale. The learned Munsiff dismissed the said execution application. The dismissal was challenged by Kuttimalu, the WPC 35112/08 2 petitioner in E.A.No.50/97, filing C.R.P.No.228/99 before this Court. It is submitted that the counsel, who is now appearing for the petitioner/ first judgment debtor in this writ petition was the same counsel who appeared for his sister Kuttimalu in C.R.P.No.228/99 and that the said revision petition was dismissed consequent on the counsel reporting “no instructions”. Thereafter, E.A.No. 635/08 was filed by the petitioner to set aside the auction sale along with E.A.No.634/08 for condoning the delay in filing the said application and also E.A.No.636/08 for staying the delivery of the property sold to the respondent in execution of the decree. It is submitted that the learned Munsiff posted all the above execution applications to 27.11.2008, which is complained to be with a view to curtail the legal rights of the petitioner/first judgment debtor. What he means is that no orders are passed by the court below on the said applications. But, it is before the said posting WPC 35112/08 3 date of 27.11.2008 that the petitioner/first judgment debtor has filed this writ petition on 26.11.2008. 3. I fail to understand why the petitioner, who has filed three applications in the court below, has approached this Court before the court below passing any orders on those applications. The prayer in this writ petition is to direct the learned Munsiff, Wadakkancherry to keep in abeyance all further proceedings in O.S.No.271/93 till the final disposal of E.A.Nos.634/08, 635/08 and 636/08 in E.P.No.131/95 and to direct the learned Munsiff to give direction to the respondent for taking steps to implead the legal heirs of deceased second defendant in O.S.No.271/93 aforesaid. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the only legal heirs of the second defendant are the present petitioner and his sister Kuttimalu, who filed E.A.No.50/97, which met with its end by dismissal of C.R.P.No.228/99 consequent on the WPC 35112/08 4 petitioner's counsel, who was appearing for her before this Court, reporting “no instructions”. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that in view of the interim stay ordered by this Court, as prayed for by the petitioner, all proceedings in execution of O.S.No.271/93 now stand stayed. That means, E.A.Nos.634/08, 635/08 and 636/08 are pending and the learned Munsiff is disabled from passing orders thereon. 5. The learned Munsiff is directed to pass appropriate orders on those applications forthwith. This writ petition is dismissed. Transmit a copy of this judgment to the court below forthwith. Counsel for the respondent is also permitted to produce a copy of this judgment in the court below to expedite the matter. Issue copy of this judgment to the counsel for the respondent urgently. 23rd January, 2009 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv