IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 2ND ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 26917 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17/09/2009 IN EP 22/2008 IN OS.193/1986 of MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE, ERATTUPETTA .................... PETITIONER: --------------- ALPHONES THOMAS, S/O.THOMAS, KOTTUMKAL HOUSE,VOLANADU KARA, BHARANANGANAM VILLAGE BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENT: --------------- ALEY,W/O.THOMMAN, KOOTTUMKAL HOUSE, ULLANADU KARA, BHARANANGANAM VILLAGE NOW RESIDING AT KOOTTUMKAL HOUSE, NEAR KARITHAS, THELLAKAM KARA, ETTUMANOOR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.26917 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: “i) To call for the records leading to Exhibit P6 and quash the same by a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction. ii) To issue a writ of prohibition restraining the Munsiff Court, Erattupetta from proceeding ahead with execution proceedings in O.S.No.193/1986. iii) To stay all further proceedings in E.P.No.22/2008 in O.S.No.193/1986 before the Munsiff Court, Erattupetta, until the disposal of the writ petition”. 2. Petitioner is not a party to the decree, which is now being executed before the Munsiff Court, Erattupetta. However, he has challenged the decree by way of a second appeal with a petition to condone delay. The delay petition was dismissed with the result his appeal also dismissed. He intends to prefer a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court is the ground canvassed for the aforementioned reliefs in the petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article W.P.(C).No.26917 of 2009 - O 2 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made I find no notice to the respondent is necessary and it is dispensed with. 4. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he may be permitted to move an application before the execution court seeking an adjournment of the delivery on the ground canvassed in the writ petition and a direction may be given to that court to consider his application. Considering the submission made, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the application to be filed by the petitioner or the relief claimed thereunder, I direct the court below to consider and dispose the application, if any, moved by the petitioner in accordance with law. With the above direction, the writ petition is closed. Hand over a copy of the judgment to the counsel for the petitioner today itself. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-