IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2011 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1933 OP(C).No. 1682 of 2011(O) ------------------------------------ OS.168/1998 of MUNISIFF MAGISTRATE COURT,MANNARKAD .................... PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. AMMINI, AGED 63 YEARS W/O. LATE KESAVAN, KORAVANPADI, AGALI, MANNARKAD TALUK 2. BIJUMON, S/O. AMMINI KORAVANPADI, AGALI, MANNARKAD TALUK BY ADVS. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI SRI.R.SREEHARI RESPONDENT -------------------- K.J. MATHEW, S/O. KOYIPURATH BABY, 'MINARVA', SHOLAYUR, MANNARKAD TALUK PIN: 687 581 THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: smt K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------ O.P(C)No.1682 OF 2011 ------------------------------ Dated this the 26th day of May, 2011 JUDGMENT The Original Petition is filed by the petitioners challenging Ext.P11 order dated 5th April, 2011 in I.A.No.123 of 2011 in I.A.No.76 of 2010 in O.S.No.168 of 1998 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff Magistrate, Mannarkkad, by which the court below dismissed the application filed by the petitioners under Rule 26 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The respondent filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale. The suit was decreed ex parte on 29.9.2003. The petitioners filed I.A.No.16 of 2005 to set aside the ex parte decree. They also filed I.A.No.15 of 2005 to condone the delay in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree. O.P(C)No.1682 OF 2011 2 The trial court dismissed the application for condonation of delay and accordingly, the application for setting aside the ex parte decree was also dismissed. The petitioners filed CMA No.5 of 2011 before the Sub Court, Ottappalam challenging the order passed by the trial court dismissing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is stated that there is a delay of more than five years in filing CMA No.5 of 2011. It is stated that the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is pending disposal. 3. Meanwhile, the respondent filed I.A.No.76 of 2010 before the trial court for an order directing execution of the sale deed. The petitioners filed I.A.No.123 of 2011 to stay the Execution Proceedings under Rule 26 Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court below, by a detailed order, dismissed that O.P(C)No.1682 OF 2011 3 application. 4. Cogent reasons have been stated by the court below to dismiss the application for stay. On going through the order, I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the court below. There is no ground for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Original Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms