IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 14TH AUGUST 2008 / 23RD SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 23879 of 2008(P) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 2521/2008 IN OS.250/2007 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, NORTH PARAVUR .................... PETITIONER: PLAINTIFF --------------------------- AZEEZ, AGED 57, S/O. MOHAMMED, VALLINJALIL HOUSE, PLAPRASSERY KARA, CHENGAMANADU VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS M.JACOB SRI.G.RAJAGOPAL RESPONDENTS: DEFENDANTS ----------------------------------- 1. KUNJUMOHAMMED, S/O. AHAMMEDUNNI, POKKATHUPARAMBIL, KUNNUKARA, KUNNUKARA VILLAGE. 2. JALEEL, S/O.KUNJUMOHAMMED, POKKATHUPARAMBIL, KUNNUKARA, KUNNUKARA VILLAGE. 3. SUBAIR, S/O.KUNJUMOHAMMED, POKKATHUPARAMBIL, KUNNUKARA, KUNNUKARA TALUK. 4. NASEER, S/O. KUNJUMOHAMMED, POKKATHPARAMBIL, KUNNUKARA, KUNNUKARA VILLAGE. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== W.P.(C) NO.23879 OF 2008 =========================== Dated this the 14th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the plaintiff and respondents the defendants in O.S.250/2007 on the file of Sub Court, North Paravur. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging Ext.P5 order passed by the learned Sub Judge in I.A.2521/2008, an application filed under section 10 of Code of Civil Procedure to stay the suit till disposal of R.F.A 203/2007. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner and respondents were heard. 3. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for petitioner is that in view of an interlocutory order passed in R.F.A.203/2007, respondents cannot alienate the property and because of that order even if the decree is to be passed in favour of the petitioner, he cannot get the fruits of the decree and therefore the suit W.P.(C)23879/2008 2 should have been stayed till the disposal of R.F.A.203/2007. The argument is that the decree challenged in R.F.A.203/2007 is also one for specific performance of an agreement for sale in respect of the same property, as against respondents and therefore the suit is to be stayed. 4. On hearing the learned counsel and going through Ext.P5 order, I do not find any illegality or irregularity warranting interference in exercise of the extra ordinary powers of this court under Article 227 of Constitution of India. 5. The question to be decided in O.S.250/2007 is whether petitioner is entitled to a decree for specific performance of an agreement for sale executed in his favour by respondents. The dispute to be decided in R.F.A. 203/2007 is whether respondents are liable to execute the sale deed in favour of plaintiff in that suit in respect of another agreement for sale. Therefore the decision in this case does not depend upon the decision which may ultimately be taken in W.P.(C)23879/2008 3 R.F.A.203/2007. Therefore there is no necessity to order stay of the suit till the disposal of R.F.A.203/2007. Though learned counsel appearing for petitioner made a submission to post the Writ Petition along with R.F.A.203/2007, there is no necessity to post the Writ Petition before the court hearing R.F.A.203/2007, as the question to be considered in the Writ Petition has nothing to do with R.F.A.203/2007. Writ Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006