IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2009 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 7592 of 2009(O) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA.2459/2008 IN CMA.86/2008 OF DISTRICT COURT,KOZHIKODE OS.9/2007 of SUB COURT, QUILANDY .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. LALITHA, D/O. SANKARAN, TEACHER, MAVULLAKUNIYIL THAZHE, KURUVANGAD AMSOM DESOM, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE. 2. SURENDRAN, S/O. SANKARAN, MAVULLAKUNIYIL THAZHE, KURUVANGAD AMSOM DESOM, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- PAYATHUVALAPPIL RAMANKUTTY, S/O. CHANDU, NOTTIKANDY, PANTHALAYANI, KOTHAMANGALAM, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.7592 of 2009 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.9 of 2007 on the file of the Sub Court, Koyilandy. The suit was filed by the respondent for specific performance of an agreement for sale. The suit was decreed ex-parte on 3.10.2007. The petitioners filed I.A.No.1486 of 2007 to set aside the ex-parte decree. That application was dismissed on 17.3.2008. Challenging that order, the petitioners filed C.M.A.No.86 of 2008 before the District Court, Kozhikode. The C.M.Appeal is pending. 2. It would appear that after the dismissal of I.A.No.1486 of 2007, the sale deed was executed in favour of the respondent at the instance of the court. In the C.M.Appeal, the petitioners filed an application for stay of execution as I.A.No.2459 of 2008. The court below passed Ext.P6 order dated 16th December 2008 in I.A.No.2459 of 2008 granting stay till 22.1.2009 on condition that the petitioners shall deposit a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- before the trial court. It is stated that time was extended till 20.2.2009 for payment of the amount. Ext.P6 order is under challenge in this WPC No.7592/2009 2 Writ Petition. 3. The decree passed in the case is not a decree for realisation of money. The decree is for specific performance of an agreement for sale. The decree holder has got the sale deed executed in his favour. Even if Rs.1,25,000/- is deposited by the petitioners, that amount cannot be paid to the decree holder as there is no such decree in his favour. So, the direction to deposit Rs.1,25,000/- is unjust. Ext.P6 order is therefore set aside. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that it is only just and proper to direct the District Court to dispose of C.M.Appeal No.86 of 2008 as expeditiously as possible. Till the disposal of the appeal, delivery of the property shall stand stayed. The District Court shall make every endeavour to dispose of the C.M.Appeal before 30.6.2009. It is assured by the petitioners that they will be ready to argue the C.M.Appeal on any date and they will not pray for adjournment. If the petitioners try to protract the case, the court below would be free to vacate the stay of delivery. The Writ Petition is allowed as above. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl