IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2008 / 3RD BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 25552 of 2008(P) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED / / IN EP 31/2003 IN OS.95/2001 of SUB COURT,THODUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER: ------------ JOSSY ABRAHAM, S/O.N.A. ABRAHAM, NANTHIKATTU KANDATHIL, ERUMELY.P.O, ERUMELY SOUTH VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.V.C.JAMES SRI.C.HARINDRAMOHAN NAIR SRI.SERGI JOSEPH THOMAS RESPONDENTS: ------------- ROBIN ABRAHAM, S/O.N.A. ABRAHAM, NANTHIKATTU KANDATHIL, KANJIRAPPALLY.P.O, KANJIRAPPALLY VILLAGE. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... WP(C).No. 25552 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF AUGUST, 2008 JUDGMENT This petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India for a direction to Sub Court, Thodupuzha to issue certified copy of the order passed by the court on 18.8.2008 in E.P.31 of 2003 in O.S.95 of 2001. Another relief sought was a direction to Sub Court, Thodupuzha not to execute the sale deed as directed in the order dated 18.8.2008. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner was heard. The argument of the learned counsel is that learned Sub Judge did not properly consider the objections raised by petitioner in the execution petition challenging the draft sale deed and approved Ext.P4 draft sale deed under order dated 18.8.2008 and before granting opportunity to the petitioner to challenge the order, executing court shall not execute the sale deed. Learned counsel submitted that though certified copy was applied for on 19.8.2008, he did not get the certified copy of the order and in such circumstances, a direction is to be issued. Learned counsel also argued that when the order passed on 18.8.2008 is to be challenged, executing court may not be WP(C) 25552/2008 2 permitted to execute the sale deed and Ext.P4 draft sale deed approved by the executing court is not in accordance with the judgment and the decree and therefore a direction is to be issued. 3. Though learned counsel argued that Ext.P4 draft sale deed is not in accordance with the decree and judgment, it is not for this court to consider that aspect in this petition. Petitioner is at liberty to challenge the same, if he challenges the order dated 18.8.2008. Sub Court, Thodupuzha is directed to issue certified copy of the order dated 18.8.2008 in E.P.31 of 2003 in O.S.95 of 2001, if petitioner has filed an application for an urgent certified copy of the order, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Though learned counsel further prayed for a direction to the executing court not to execute the sale deed, I do not find any reason to grant that relief. Petition is disposed accordingly. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-