IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2010 / 22ND SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 25582 of 2010(O) -------------------------- OS.481/2007 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,IRINJALAKUDA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. DEVAYANI, AGED 61, W/O.AYINIPPILLY KRITHYAVASAN, PADIYOOR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. BIJU, AGED 33,S/O.AYINIPPILLY KRITHYAVASAN, PADIYOOR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. OMANA, W/O.NEDIYAPARAMBIL PADMANABHAN KOOLIMUTTAM VILLAGE AND DESOM KODUNGALLUR TALUK 680 664. 2. DHANYA JOSHI, D/O.NEDIYAPARAMBIL PADMANABHAN KOOLIMUTTAM VILLAGE AND DESOM KODUNGALLUR TALUK 680 664. 3. THE BHAGYAM KURIES (P) LTD THRISSUR ROAD, IRINJALAKUDA TOWN MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, REP BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR 680 121. 4. THE PUNARJANI CHITS (P) LTD REP BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KODAKARA, P.O.KODAKARA 680 684. 5. THE BETHLAHEM KURIES (P) LTD REP BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, PADIYOOR VILLAGE,MUKUNNDAPURAM TALUK 680 069. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.25582 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of August, 2010. JUDGMENT Notice to the respondents is dispensed with in view of the order I propose to pass in this Writ Petition. 2. Petitioners before me are defendant Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.481 of 2007 of the court of learned Principal Sub Judge, Irinjalakkuda. That is a suit filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 for specific performance of an agreement for sale allegedly executed by petitioners. Defendant Nos.3 to 5 were impleaded in the suit on the strength of certain attachments effected by them over suit property. Petitioners were set exparte on 21.01.2008 and a decree was passed in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2. In accordance with the decree, a sale deed was executed through court in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and delivery has been ordered. In the meantime petitioners filed applications to set aside the exparte decree and condone the delay in filing that application. Grievance of petitioners is that the applications have not been numbered and in the meantime respondent Nos.1 and 2 are trying to get property delivered over to them. Learned counsel states that suit property is only the item of property belonging to the petitioners where they are residing and that they have serious contentions to be raised in the suit. It is contended that petitioners are denying execution of agreement for sale. WP(C) No.25582/2010 2 3. When an application is presented in court as provided under the Civil Rules of Practice it is required to be numbered. That is clear from Rule 29 of the Civil Rules of Practice and Form 13 attached to the said Rules. Hence, applications to set aside exparte decree and to condone the delay, if duly presented were required to be numbered. Learned Sub Judge shall comply with Rule 29 of the Civil Rules of Practice in the matter. Learned Sub Judge is also directed to dispose of Ext.P3, application to condone the delay as early as possible. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that delivery of property in the suit shall remain in abeyance for a period of three weeks from this day. Learned Sub Judge shall dispose of Ext.P3, application within the said period. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks