IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 1ST OCTOBER 2009 / 9TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 27583 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN EP 153/09 IN OS.338/2002 of I ADDL.M.C.,NEYYATTINKARA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- VIJAYAMBIKA, D/O.LEKSHMIKUTTY, KARAKKATTUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, PALLICHAL DESOM, PALLICHAL VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER ADV.SRI.K.JAYACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DEVAKI, W/O.LATE AYYAPPAN NADAR, KUMARA BHAVAN, KELESWARAN, KALLIYOOR P.O., NEYYATTINKARA TALUK. 2. PRASANTH, S/O.LATE AYYAPPAN NADAR, DO. DO. 3. NISHANTH, S/O.LATE AYYAPPAN NADAR, DO. DO. 4. LEKSHMIKUTTY, LEKSHMI SADANAM, NEAR MUDAVOORPARA PRIVATE HIGH SCHOOL, PALLICHAL VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK. 5. SASI, S/O.KUMARESAN, KARAKATTUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, PALLICHAL DESOM AND VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK. 6. PRAJEESH, S/O.SASI, DO. DO. 7. RATHEESH, S/O.SASI, DO. DO. 8. UNNI, S/O.SASI, DO. DO. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.27583 OF 2009 (O) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking mainly the following reliefs: i. to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order staying all further proceedings on Ext.P3 order till the consideration of Ext.P2(a) by this Honourable Court. 2. Petitioner is one among the judgment debtors in E.P.No.153 of 2009 in O.S.No.338 of 2002 on the file of the Additional Munsiff Court-I, Neyattinkara. The decree sought to be executed is one for possession and putting up of boundaries. Petitioner moved an application for stay of the execution proceedings on the ground that they have preferred a second appeal with a petition to condone the delay against WPC.27583/09 2 the decision of the trial court, which was confirmed in the first appeal, and the service on the delay petition is yet to be completed. The execution court declined the request for stay vide Ext.P6 order. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Service is not completed on the delay petition filed with the second appeal, is the ground canvassed by the petitioner to provide a grace period for keeping in abeyance the execution of the decree. I am not impressed by the submissions made by the learned counsel. This is not a fit case where this Court can pass orders for the relief sought for in exercise of its visitorial jurisdiction. There is no merit in the writ petition, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp WPC.27583/09 3