IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2011 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1932 OP(C).No. 1009 of 2011(O) AGAINST THE ORDER IN EP.NO.248/2010 IN OS.1408/2002 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PETITIONER ------------------- C.REGHU,VARUVILAKATHU VEEDU, TC.26/155(1),PETTAH,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER SMT.M.JAYASREE RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. LATHA GOPALAKRISHNAN,REVATHI, TC.18/1780(3),THIRUMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. VISHNU GOPALAKRISHNAN,REVATHI, TC.18/1780(3),THIRUMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 3. PARVATHY(MINOR),AGED 14 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER-NATURAL GUARDIAN, LATHA GOPALAKRISHNAN,REVATHI,TC.18/1780(3), THIRUMALA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ O.P.(C). NO. 1009 OF 2011 O ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the judgment debtor in O.S.No.1408 of 2002, on the file of the Court of the Munsiff of Thiruvananthapuram. The suit was decreed on 12.12.2005 declaring the right of easement of way claimed by the plaintiffs. An injunction was also granted restraining the defendants from making any obstruction to the pathway. The prayers for fixation of boundary and for recovery of possession of plaint 'F' schedule property were also granted. However, some of the reliefs were declined. The petitioner filed A.S.No.141 of 2006 challenging the judgment and decree in O.S.No.1408 of 2002. The appeal was dismissed on 30.1.2010. The petitioner filed R.S.A.No.822 of 2010 in March, 2010. An application for stay was also filed in the Regular Second Appeal. In the Regular Second Appeal, only notice on admission was ordered. No stay was granted. It is stated that service of notice is not completed in the Regular Second Appeal. O.P.(C) NO.1009 OF 2011 :: 2 :: 2. Meanwhile, execution proceedings continued. On 1.3.2011, there was no representation for the judgment debtor. The executing court ordered delivery to be effected on 5.3.2011, as per Ext.P6 order dated 1.3.2011. 3. This Original Petition is filed on 7.3.2011 for the following reliefs: “(i) Set aside the order dated 1.3.2011 in Ext.P1 (Ext.P6). (ii) Direct the Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram to afford petitioner a chance to file his objection on Ext.P1 before passing any order to effect delivery. (iii) Stay the proceedings on Ext.P1 petition. (iv) Such other appropriate writ, order or direction this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper to meet the ends of Justice.” 4. Ext.P1 is the Execution Petition. The Execution Petition was filed in April, 2010. The first prayer in the Original Petition is to set aside the order passed by the executing court. The Original Petition is not maintainable for that relief. The second relief also O.P.(C) NO.1009 OF 2011 :: 3 :: cannot be granted, since the executing court passed final orders in the Execution Petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the only relief which the petitioner seeks is to stay the execution proceedings for a period of ten days so that, in the meanwhile, the stay petition in the Regular Second Appeal could be moved. I do not think that such a relief can be granted, particularly, in the facts and circumstances of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Original Petition is dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/