IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2009 / 1ST ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 14769 of 2009(O) ----------------------------------- OS.257/2005 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM .................................................. PETITIONER(S): --------------------- V.SOMARAJAN, AGED S/O. LATE M.K. VELAYUDHAN, RESIDING AT 159, LAKSHMI NIVAS, BASAVESWARA NAGAR, BANGLORE. BY ADV. SRI.SHEEJO CHACKO SRIA.G.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.DEVAN K.MENON RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. V. HEERA DEVI, AGED 30, W/O. SIVAJILAL, PROPRIETOR HEERA ENGERPRISES, THOPPIL MOOVODU P.O., VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. 2. THREESONS PAINTS AND CHEMICALS PVT LTD., PLOT NO. 183, KIADB, BOMMASANDOA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, HOSCOR ROAD, BANGALORE, REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, V.SOMARAJAN. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, BRANCH OFFICE, THREESONS PAINTS AND CHEMICALS PVT LTD., 33/173 I B, SOORYA BHAVAN, KANIYYAPPILLY ROAD, COCHIN 682 028. ADV. SRI.K.P.SREEKUMAR FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.14769 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the Principal Sub Court, Ernakulam to consider and dispose Ext.p6 claim petition filed as E.A.No.641/2008 in E.P.No.421/2008 in O.S.NO.257/2005 and not to proceed with the E.P. for sale without disposing the claim petition in accordance with law.” 2. The grievance raised by the petitioner is that after obtaining a decree against the company in which he was the Managing Director, steps are being taken by the decree holder to proceed against his individual property, and objecting to that course he preferred a claim petition before the court for lifting the attachment ordered against his property. That application was dismissed for default, according to the petitioner, after it was brought to the notice that a stay order had been passed by this Court in the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the decree holder/respondent submits that the facts stated by the W.P.(C).No.14769 of 2009 - O 2 petitioner are not fully correct. Petitioner was not present and some one on his behalf, according to the counsel, represented only for adjournment of the case. Though the petitioner has filed an affidavit in support of the submissions made by his counsel as above, I find that having regard to the facts and circumstances involved, a detailed enquiry into those aspects may not be conducive to advance the ends of justice. Taking note that the dismissal of the claim petition was at a time when a stay order passed by this court was in force, I direct the learned Sub Judge to restore that application forthwith, pass appropriate orders on the application and dispose of the claim petition as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law after giving opportunity to both sides to establish their respective case. Claim petition shall be disposed after restoring the petition to file within a span of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-