IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2009 / 31ST BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 26539 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED / / IN EP 62/2005 IN AP.132/2000 of DISTRICT COURT, THALASSERY AS.98/2008 of SUB COURT, PAYYANNUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.MUHAMMED KUNHI, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.IBRAHIM MUSALIYAR, KEERANDAKATH HOUSE, ONAPPARAMBA, KOTTILA P.O., REP. BY P.A.HOLDER, SON PALLIKKEEL MUKRIRAKATH NIZAMUDHIN, 23 YEARS, S/O.K.MUHAMMED KUNHI, ONAPPARAMBA, KOTTILA P.O., EZHOME (VIA), KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.HARISH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. M/S.MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LTD., REGD. OFFICE SYNDICATE HOUSE, MANIPAL-676 119, UDUPPI DISTRICT, KARNATAKA STATE. 2. K.GOPALAKRISHNA BHAT, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.K.RAMADAS BHAT, KUNJIBETTU, UDUPPI, KARNATAKA STATE. 3. K.ABDUL SAMAD, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.IBRAHIM MUSALIYAR, KOLLAD, CHUZHALL, TALIPARAMBA(VIA), KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. PLACKEEL MARIYAM, AGED 41 YEARS, W/O.ABDU, PLACKEEL HOUSE, CHITTADI P.O., ALAKKODE (VIA), KANNUR DISTRICT. 5. KARAYI MOIDU, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, CHITTADI P.O., ALAKKODE (VIA), KANNUR DISTRICT. 6. AREEKAL MOTTAMMAL ASYA, W/O.KARAYIL MOIDU, CHITTADI P.O., ALAKKODE (VIA), KANNUR DISTRICT. 7. P.UMESH KUMAR, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, LAKSHMI NIVAS, POOKOTH STREET, P.O.TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C).No.26539 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of September 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs. i) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Principal District Judge, Thalassery not to enfore the execution proceedings initiated against the petitioner in E.P No.62/2005 in A.P No.132/2000, till the disposal of the Appeal Suit No.98 of 2008 on the file of the Sub Judge, Payyannur. ii) Declare that 1st respondents is not entitled any execution proceedings against the petitioner since he is not a party to the hire purchase agreement. iii) Declare that the effectuation of the Arbitration Award, pending to the disposal of W.P.(C).No.26539 OF 2009 Page numbers Ext.P4 appeal on merit is unsustainable in law. iv) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Sub Judge, Payyannur to consider and dispose the Ext.P4 appeal. v) To issue other order writ order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. An arbitration award had been passed against the petitioner and in favour of the first respondent. Impeaching the correctness of that award, petitioner had filed a suit as O.S No.370 of 2007 before the Munsiff Court, Thalassery. That suit after trial was dismissed vide Ext.P3 judgment. Petitioner has preferred an appeal against the dismissal of his suit before the Sub Court, Payyannur and it is numbered and received on the file as A.S No.98/2008. Meanwhile the first W.P.(C).No.26539 OF 2009 Page numbers respondent has taken steps to execute the arbitration award. Petitioner seeks stay of execution proceedings over that award till disposal of his Ext.P4 appeal by filing the writ petition. 3. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondents is necessary and hence it is dispensed with. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had challenged the correctness of that award by filing a writ petition also before the High Court of Karnataka, but that petition was dismissed. Whatever be the merits of the challenge canvassed by the petitioner against the arbitration award by way of suit or writ petition or any other proceeding as provided by law, needless to point out he has to vindicate his right in such W.P.(C).No.26539 OF 2009 Page numbers proceedings. So far as Ext.P4 appeal preferred by him against the dismissal of his suit, it is open to the petitioner to seek appropriate reliefs in that appeal against the execution of the arbitration award, if so provided by law. This court in exercise of its visitorial jurisdiction cannot grant the relief sought for, stay of execution proceedings of the award till disposal of the Ext.P4 appeal as desired by the petitioner. There is no merit in the writ petition, and it is dismissed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv