IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2010 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1932 FAO.No. 101 of 2010() --------------------- OS.335/2003 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER(THIRD PARTY) ----------------------------------------------------- SREEDHARAN, S/O.OARALATH KITTUNNI, CHIYYARAM VILLAGE AND DESOM,THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.VAKKOM N.VIJAYAN SRI.RAMAKRISHNAN SOMANADHAN NAIR SMT.V.RENJU SRI.P.ANIYAN SMT.M.A.RAMITHA RESPONDENT(S)/DECREE HOLDER AND JUDGMENT DEBTORS: --------------- 1. PERINGOTTUKARA NAMBOODIRI,YOGAKSHEMA SABHA,ANTHIKKAD, THRISSUR,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. ANIL KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O.VASUDEVAN, EASWARAMANGALATH HOUSE, ALUM VETTUVAZHI,CHIYYARAM VILLAGE,THRISSUR TALUK. 3. SURESH BABU, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.SREEDHARA MENON,ANTHOOR HOUSE, PURANARTTUKARA, ADATT VILLAGE, THRISSUR. ADV. V.R.K.KAIMAL FOR R1 SRI.N.M.MADHU FOR R1 SMT.C.DEVIKA RANI KAIMAL FOR R1 THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------ FAO. No. 101 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of April, 2010 J U D G M E N T Pius C. Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this FAO is the order of the execution court dismissing an application filed by the petitioner, a stranger to the execution proceedings to set aside the sale on the ground of fraud and material irregularity under Order 21 Rule 90(4). Sri.N.M.Madhu, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent Sabha submitted that the appellant has already filed a regular suit seeking the selfsame relief and seeking more comprehensive relief. He also submitted that in that suit stay of all further proceedings in the present execution proceedings has also been granted. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant Smt. Renju submitted that it is true that a suit has been filed and stay has been granted. But according to her, the stay presently granted is only for FAO. 101/10 - 2 - two weeks and she requested that if we are closing the FAO due to the pendency of the suit the order of stay be continued. We do not think that we will be justified in continuing the stay passed in this appeal in view of the comprehensive suit already filed by the appellant. It is for the appellant to move the court where the suit is pending for continuation of the stay already granted by that court. With the above observation the FAO is dismissed as unnecessary. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE ksv/-