IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 8TH OCTOBER 2009 / 16TH ASWINA 1931 CRP.No. 283 of 2009() --------------------- OP(IND.)1/2009 of SUB COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): ----------------------------------------- 1. USHA MOHANDAS, MANJU NIVAS, PANAVILA, NALAMCHIRA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SIMI USHAKUMARI, MANJU NIVAS, PANAVILA, NALAMCHIRA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. RAJMOHAN, MANJU NIVAS, PANAVILA, NALAMCHIRA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.GIREESH VARMA RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, PARVATHI MANDIRAM, MATHILBHAGOM, THIRUVALLA. BY ADVS. MR.SATHISH NINAN, MR.SANTHOSH MATHEW. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- C.R.P.No.283 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of October 2009 ------------------------------------- ORDER The revision is filed by the petitioners/ plaintiffs in O.P(Ind.)No. 1 of 2009 on the file of the Sub Court, Thiruvalla challenging the order passed by the learned Sub Judge declining the request to stay the execution of the decree passed in O.S No.133/2006 of the same court under Order 21 Rule 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Notice given, the respondent/counter petitioner in the above O.P(Ind.) has entered appearance through counsel. 2. I heard the counsel on both sides. At the time of hearing, it is submitted that the O.P(Ind) has been converted and numbered as O.S No.73/2009 on the file of the Sub Court, C.R.P.No.283 OF 2009 Page numbers Thiruvalla. The respondent in the present petition has got a decree for money against the predecessor in interest of the petitioners, the husband of the first petitioner and father of the second and third petitioners. Execution proceedings against the petitioners are in process. A property originally belonging to the predecessor of the petitioners was proceeded for sale. At that stage, the revision was filed and pursuant to orders passed, the sale remains adjourned by orders passed by this court. The decree for money was passed on the basis of a promissory note purported to have been executed by the predecessor of the petitioners. Impeaching that promissory note as vitiated by fraud, the present O.P(Ind.) was filed which has now been renumbered as a suit and await adjudication by the court. An application under Order 21 Rule 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure for staying the execution was moved by the petitioners canvassing the pendency of the present proceedings. But after C.R.P.No.283 OF 2009 Page numbers hearing both sides the court below dismissed that application which is challenged in the revision. 3. Pursuant to orders passed by this court, substantial portion of the amount covered by the decree in O.S No.133/2006 has been deposited before the court below and it has been released also to the decree holder. A property belonging to the predecessor of the petitioners also continues to be under attachment for satisfaction of the decree debt. Taking into consideration those aspects, I find a breathing time can be provided to the petitioners to avoid further proceedings in execution of the decree till a decision is rendered in their suit O.S No.73/2009 pending before the court below. I direct the court below to give the suit O.S No.73/2009 top priority in hearing and dispose it as expeditiously as possible, after affording reasonable opportunity to both sides to lead evidence in support of their respective case, C.R.P.No.283 OF 2009 Page numbers at any rate within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till a decision is rendered in the suit subject to the time limit fixed as above, I direct, the court below shall keep in abeyance further execution proceedings of the decree passed in O.S No.133/2006 which was rendered in favour of the first respondent. I make it clear that the orders passed by this court in extending a grace period by staying the operation of the decree shall not be construed or interpreted in any way lending any assistance to the suit claim canvassed, which has to be decided and disposed of on its merit. Subject to the observations made above, the revision is disposed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv