IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 OP(C).No. 3898 of 2011(O) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29/10/2011 IN E.A.NO.257/2011 IN EP.268/2010 IN ARC.2840/2006 of MUNSIFF COURT, PARAPPANANGADI .................... PETITIONERS: ------------------------ 1. BHASKARAN, S/O. APPU, AGED 68 YEARS, NAMBIARUVEETTIL HOUSE, P.O.ARIYALLUR, VALLIKKUNNU, TIRURANGADI TALUK-676 312. 2. K. SUBHEESH, S/O. BHASKARAN, AGED 28 YEARS, KANNATHARAMMAL HOUSE, P.O., ARIYALLUR, TIRURANGADI-676 312. 3. BHAKTA VALSALAN, S/O. NAYADI, AGED 32 YEARS, ATHIKARIMANAMMAL MANAKKAL HOUSE, P.O., ARIYALLUR, TIRURANGADI TALUK-676 312. BY ADVS. SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM, SRI. N.P. KURIAN. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- SECRETARY, THENNALA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, P.O.VALAKKULAM-676 508, TIRURANGADI TALUK. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss OPC.NO.3898/2011 O APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED E.A. NO. 257/2011 IN E.P. 268/2010 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF COURT, PARAPPANANGADY. EXT.P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29-10-2011 IN E.A. NO. 257/2011 IN E.P. 268/2010 IN A.R.C. NO. 2840/2006 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF COURT, PARAPPANANGADY. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== O.P(C) No.3898 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 30th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T Judgment debtors in E.P. No.268 of 2010 of the court of learned Munsiff, Parappanagady where the award in ARC No.2840 of 2006 is being executed, are aggrieved by Ext.P2, order refusing to grant stay as prayed for. 2. According to the petitioners they have filed revision against the award (sought to be executed) before the Co-operative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram (for short, “the Tribunal”) and in the circumstance, the request for stay of further proceedings including sale of property. Executing court found that the provisions of Rule 26 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code') has no application and in the circumstances the said court cannot invoke Sec.151 of the Code and grant stay. That order is under challenge. 3. Though learned counsel contended that the executing court could have disposed of the application on merit but that has not done, I am unable to accept that argument. Executing court has referred to the contentions and stated that Rule 26 of Order O.P(C) No.3898 of 2011 -: 2 :- XXI of the Code has no application and hence when a specific provision for stay is provided in the Code and that is not applicable, Sec.151 of the Code cannot be resorted to. 4. But this Court exercising the power under Article 227 of the Constitution could grant relief to the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that petitioners have filed a revision before the Tribunal but it was returned to cure defect. Defect has been cured and the revision has been re-presented, it is submitted. According to the learned counsel it will take some time for the revision to come up for hearing so that petitioners could attempt at to get a stay of execution proceedings. 5. Having regard to the circumstances stated, I am inclined to direct that execution proceedings as well as sale of property of petitioners scheduled to be held on 09.12.2011 will stand adjourned to a day after one month from 09.12.2011 subject to conditions. Original Petition is disposed of as follows: It is directed that sale of property of petitioners scheduled to be held on 09.12.2011 and the execution proceedings will stand adjourned to a day after one month from 09.12.2011 subject to the condition that petitioners, without prejudice to their O.P(C) No.3898 of 2011 -: 3 :- contentions in the revision preferred before the Tribunal file affidavits in the executing court before the time scheduled for sale waiving fresh proclamation for such sale. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv