← Library
High Court of KeralaOP(C)/2888/2015dismissed

K.S. Rajesh v. P.P. George

2015-11-30Honourable Mr. Justice K.Abraham Mathew3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/9TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937 OP(C).No. 2888 of 2015 (O) --------------------------- EP.NO.32/2011 IN OS.NO.52/1999 OF SUB COURT, THODUPUZHA. ...................

PETITIONER(S):

-----------------------

1. K.S. RAJESH, S/O. SIVARAMAN NAIR, AGED 32 YEARS, PARAYAKKUNNEL HOUSE, PADINJAREKODIKULAM, THODUPUZHA.

2. K.S.RAMESH, S/O. SIVARAMAN NAIR, AGED 26 YEARS, PARAYAKKUNNEL HOUSE, PADINJAREKODIKULAM, THODUPUZHA.

BY ADVS.SRI.D.NARENDRANATH SRI.M.HARISHARMA RESPONDENT(S):

-------------------------

1. P.P. GEORGE, S/O. PAILY, PALLIKUNNEL HOUSE, THENNATHUR KARA, KODIKKULAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, PIN - 685 584..

2. SIVARAMAN NAIR, S/O. RAMAN NAIR, PARAYAKKUNNEL HOUSE, PADINJAREKODIKULAM, THODUPUZHA, PIN - 685 584. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-11-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: mbr/

OP(C).No. 2888 of 2015 (O) ------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE UNNUMBERED RSA FILED ON 18-11-2015 BEFORE THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE UNNUMBERED PETITION TO CONDONE DELAY IN FILING THE R.S.A.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL --------------------------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE mbr/

K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P.(C)No.2888 of 2015 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of November, 2015

J U D G M E N T

The First respondent has obtained a decree against the second respondent. The property of the latter was sold to the petitioners. On the basis of the sale deed they filed a claim petition in execution proceedings. It was dismissed. Now the matter is pending in the second appeal. The prayer in this OP is to stay the further proceedings in the execution petition.

2.

Heard.

3.

It is submitted that there has been delay in filing the second appeal and so the petitioners have not been able to get an order of stay in the second appeal and that is why this OP has been filed. It is not proper for the High Court to invoke Article 227 of the Constitution to grant stay of execution proceedings when an appeal is pending. So I am not inclined to grant the prayer of the petitioner.

In the result this OP is dismissed.

sd/- K. ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE R.AV