← Library
High Court of KeralaOP(C)/2388/2015dismissed

Shinto Kurian v. S. Stalin

2015-10-06Honourable Mr. Justice K.Abraham Mathew3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2015/14TH ASWINA, 1937 OP(C).No. 2388 of 2015 (O) --------------------------- EP NO. 39/2014 IN OS NO. 112/2012 OF SUB COURT, THODUPUZHA -------------------- PETITIONER(S) :

-------------------------- 1.

SHINTO KURIAN S/O. KURIAN, 45 YEARS ARACKAL HOUSE, ANACHAL KARA KUNCHITHANNI VILLAGE DEVIKULAM TALUK.

2.

RAGHAVAN AGED 55 YEARS, PARACKAL HOUSE ANACHAL KARA, KUNCHITHANNI VILLAGE DEVIKULAM TALUK.

BY ADVS.SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SRI.M.D.SASIKUMAR SRI.GEORGE MATHEW SRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G SRI.DIPU JAMES RESPONDENT :

------------------------ S. STALIN S/O. T. SUNDARAJ, NO. 26 GODANDARAMAN ILLAM AMARAR JEEVA STREET, SANITORIUM CHENNAI - 77 NOW RESIDING AT NO. 28, 2ND CROSS STREET L.B. COLONY, UDAYAM NAGAR VELACHERY, CHENNAI - 600 042.

REP. BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER T. SUNDARAJ, S/O. THANKAYYA NADAR NAGARMUDI DIVISION, SEVENMALA ESTATE KDH VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK- 685 613.

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-10-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/-

OP(C).No. 2388 of 2015 (O) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

EXT.P1 : COPY OF DECREE DATED 20.1.2014 IN OS NO. 112 OF 2012 OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, THODUPUZHA.

EXT.P2 COPY OF EP NO. 39/2014 DATED 17.6.2014 IN OS NO. 112 OF 2012 OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, THODUPUZHA.

EXT.P3 COPY OF ORDER DATED 31.8.2015 IN EP NO. 39 OF 2014 IN OS NO. 112 OF 2012 OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, THODUPUZHA. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn

K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P.(C). No. 2388 of 2015 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of October, 2015

J U D G M E N T

Petitioners are defendants in O.S.No.112 of 2012 on the file of Sub Judge, Thodupuzha. The suit has been decreed. The petitioners filed AS.No.63 of 2015 with a petition to condone the delay. It has not been disposed of. The prayer in this O.P is to stay execution of the decree. 2.

Heard.

3.

I am not satisfied that Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be invoked to stay execution of the decree. The proper remedy for the petitioners is to insist on an earlier disposal of the delay condonation petition.

In the result, this O.P is dismissed.

sd/- K. ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE R.AV //True Copy// PA to Judge