IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2009 / 23RD ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 29073 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 1417/09 IN AS.148/2004 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT,KOTTAYAM OS.763/1999 of PRL.M.C., KOTTAYAM (EA 341/09 IN EP 66/09) .................... PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. M.KOYA S/O. MOHAMMED KUNJU MOOPEN, MUSLIM, AGED 59 YEARS, LAILA MANZIL, OLASSA P.O., AYMANAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. 2. RAHIMA W/O. M.KOYA MUSLIM, AGED 55 YEARS, LAILA MANZIL, OLASSA P.O., AYMANAM VILLGE, KOTTAYAM. 3. RAJEENA D/O. M.KOYA MUSLIM, AGED 55, LAILA MANZIL, OLASSA P.O., AYMANAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. MR.N.UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT: --------------- THOMAS JOSEPH S/O. JOSEPH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,OZHUGAVIL HOUSE, KONGANDOOR KARA, AYARKUNNAM VILLGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.29073 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: “i) To call for the records leading to issuance of Exhibits P1, P2 P4 and P5 stay order. ii) To declare that Exhibit P5 is unsustainable in the eyes of law and quash it by issuing a writ of certiorari. iii) To declare that Execution court ought to have extended the stay granted as per Exhibit P4 order till review court considers and passes order. iv) To issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate writ or order or direction to Principal Munsiff Court, Kottayam, to keep the execution proceedings in E.P.No.66/2009 in O.S.No.763/1999 till the review court considers and pass orders on I.A.No.1417/2009 in A.S.No. 148/2004.” 2. Petitioners are the defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No.763 of 1999 on the file of the Principal Munsiff Court, Kottayam. The above suit was one for recovery of possession and for prohibitory injunction. The trial court dismissed the suit and the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the District Court, Kottayam. Reversing the dismissal of the suit a decree was granted in favour of the plaintiff. Petitioners/defendants in the suit were treated as W.P.(C).No.29073 of 2009 - O 2 absent and accordingly a decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff. They moved a review petition before the appellate court for review of the judgment with a petition to condone delay. Meanwhile, the decree holder/plaintiff moved for execution of the decree. An application moved by the petitioners before the execution court for stay of the execution proceedings till a decision is rendered on the petition filed by them to condone delay on their review petition was initially granted by the execution court, but, later, that stay order was vacated. Ext.P5 is the order vacating the stay order previously granted. Propriety and correctness of Ext.p5 order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented with reference to the exhibits produced in the writ petition, I find no notice to the respondent is necessary and it is dispensed with. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the review petition filed before the District Court for review of the W.P.(C).No.29073 of 2009 - O 3 judgment passed in appeal service is complete and the respondent after entering appearance has sought for time to file objections. It is further submitted the review petition is posted on 16/10/2009 for filing objections to the delay petition by the respondent/plaintiff. Having regard to the submissions so made I direct the learned Additional District Judge, Kottayam to expedite the enquiry on the delay petition and dispose it of at any rate within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this judgment. Meanwhile, execution court, Principal Munsiff Court, Kottayam is directed to proceed with the execution, but, keep in abeyance the delivery of the property for a period of six weeks from the date of this order. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Hand over a copy of the judgment to the counsel for the petitioner and send a copy to the Additional District Court and Munsiff Court, Kottayam. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-