IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2010 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 11641 of 2010(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24/3/2010 IN EA 131/09 IN EP 8/09 IN OS.94/2000 of MUNSIFF COURT, HARIPAD .................... PETITIONER: --------------- GOPALAN, S/O.VELUTHAKUNJU, NIKATHIL VEEDU, ERIKKAVU MURI, KUMARAPURAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. AMBUJAKSHAN, S/O.JANARDHANAN, PUTHIVEETTIL, ERIKKAVU MURI, KUMARAPURAM VILLAGE. 2. GEETHA, D/O.MANIYAMMA, PUTHIVEETTIL, ERIKKAVU MURI, KUMARAPURAM VILLAGE. ADV. SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE FOR R1,2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 11641 of 2010(O) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXHIBIT P1: Execution petition in E.P.8/2009. EXHIBIT P2: Application filed by the petitioner before the executing court dtd.8/10/2009. EXHIBIT P3: Order of the Munsiff of Haripad in E.A.131/2009 in E.P.8/2009 in O.S.94/2000 dtd.24/3/2010 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- Nil True copy P.A. to Judge THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.C.No.11641 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 21st day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner is judgment debtor No.2 in E.P.No.8 of 2009 in O.S.No.94 of 2000 of the court of learned Munsiff, Haripad. Respondents are seeking to execute the decree for mandatory and prohibitory injunction. In the meantime the regular first appeal filed by the petitioner ended in a dismissal. It is stated that judgment and decree of the first appellate court are under challenge in the second appeal in this court and that an application for stay of execution of the mandatory injunction is pending consideration in the second appeal but, in the meantime respondents are trying to execute the decree. Petitioner sought stay of execution in the executing court till the application for stay is considered by this court in the second appeal. That application was dismissed. That order is under challenge in this writ petition. Learned counsel for respondents submits that stay petition had come up for hearing on the second appeal in several occasions but it was adjourned for some reason or other. 2. Admittedly the second appeal and the application for stay are pending consideration of this court. In that case proper W.P.C.No.11641 of 2010 : 2 : remedy available to the petitioner is to seek stay in the petition already filed in the second appeal. The executing court was justified in not granting stay since the second appeal and application of stay are pending consideration of this court. There is no reason to interfere with the order under challenge. Writ petition is dismissed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-