V.D. Ponnappan vs Revamma and Others

Thomas P. Joseph, J.—Petitioner is a legal representative of plaintiff in O.S. No. 415 of 1995 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Alappuzha. That is a suit for cancellation of a sale deed and for consequential relief. Suit was resisted by respondent Nos. 1 ad 2 on the ground that sale deed is executed for consideration and is valid. They filed O.S. No. 11 of 1996 against the predecessor-in-interest of petitioner for a declaration of their title and recovery of possession. By Ext.P1, common judgment O.S. No. 11 of 1996 was decreed and O.S. No. 415 of 1995 was dismissed. The predecessor-in-interest of petitioner filed A.S. No. 492 of 2001 against judgment and decree in O.S. No. 11 of 1996. But by Ext.P3, judgment that appeal was dismissed as barred by res judicata since the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 415 of 1995 became final. After the death of predecessor-in-interest petitioner has filed R.P. No. 592 of 2010 with an application to condone the delay for review of Ext.P3, judgment and he filed an appeal against judgment and decree in O.S. No. 415 of 1995 with an application to condone the delay. Registry has returned that appeal as defective for the reason that certified copy of decree was not produced. Following that petitioner filed Ext.P6, application before the learned Sub Judge to issue certified copy of decree in O.S. No. 415 1995. In the meantime he also tried to get stay of execution proceeding in O.S. No. 11 of 1996 by filing Ext.P4, application which the learned Sub Judge dismissed finding no reason to grant stay. Thereon petitioner applied for copy of order on Ext.P4, application. The prayer in this petition is to direct learned Sub Judge to issue certified copies as requested in Exts.P6 and P7, applications and in the meantime to stay execution proceedings. Learned Counsel submits that petitioner has serious contentions to be advanced in this Court in R.P. No. 592 of 2010 and the appeal arising from the decree in O.S. No. 415 of 1995.

Having heard learned Counsel I am not inclined to think that this is a fit case where execution proceedings in O.S. No. 11 of 1996 has to be stayed. Hence that request cannot be allowed. But learned Sub Judge, Alappuzha is directed to comply with Exts.P6 and P7, applications as provided under law at the earliest.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.