IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 21ST FEBRUARY 2008 / 2ND PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 6168 of 2008(H) ------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN EA 290/07 IN OS.98/2003 OF SUB COURT, CHERTHALA. .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- STAR FISH EXPORT, REEV'S BUILDING, EDAKOCHI-682 008 REPRESENTED BY MANAGING PARTNER, V.GEORGE JOSEPH, S/O.V.I.JOSEPH, VADAKKEDATH HOUSE, (16/1694 CA), OPPOSITE SANTHOM CHURCH, MUNDAMVELI P.O., KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI. R.AZAD BABU. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. SUVARNA CHITTY FUND, POOCHACKAL, CHERTHALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS, VINCENT, S/O.JOHN ANCHUTHARAYIL VEEDU, PANAVALLY MURI, PANAVALLY VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK. 2. PIUS, S/O.JOHN, PARTNER, SUVARNA CHITTY FUND, POOCHACKAL, RESIDING AT ANCHUTHARAYIL VEEDU PANAVALLY MURI, PANAVALLY VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI. K.S. HARIHARA PUTHRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/02/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.C. NO. 6168 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 21st day of February, 2008. J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed by the decree holder in E.P.27/06 in O.S.98/03. The judgment debtor moved an execution application 290/07 under Order 21 Rule 26 for stay of the execution of the decree. Admittedly an appeal has been preferred against the judgment debtor as RFA 516/07 before this Court with a petition to condone the delay. It is pending. The learned Subordinate Judge applied the decision reported in Mathew Titus v. Thankamma Titus (1999 (3) KLT 538) and granted a stay. It is a case where the suit relates to one for partition and passing of final decree etc. In such situation this Court held that if interest of justice requires, the execution proceedings can be kept in abeyance. Until the said petition filed in the appeal is disposed of there is no provision which gives entitlement to the judgment debtor to get an indefinite stay, even the said W.P.C 6168 OF 2008 -:2:- prayer cannot be granted by the appellate court where the matter is pending. But I do not want to go into the detail at this stage for the reason that I think justice can be made in this case by restricting the operation of the stay order passed by the Court below for a period of one month from today. If the judgment debtors are not in a position to get the petition disposed of pending before this Court within the said period of one month, the decree holder will be entitled to proceed further with the execution proceedings in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-