REENA PRADEEP Vs. GEORGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is the judgment debtor in E.P.No.215 of 2010 and defendant in O.S.No.781 of 2007 of the court of learned Principal Munsiff Kollam. That is a suit for fixation of boundary and for other reliefs. PETITIONER filed written statement with a counter claim (Ext.P2). The suit was dismissed as not pressed based on a memo on 08-09-2009. Later the suit was restored to file. Learned counsel states that a copy of application for restoration was given to the former counsel who was appearing for petitioner. But, there was some mistake in the office due to which there was no appearance when application for restoration was taken up. Application for restoration was allowed and later, for absence of petitioner the suit was decreed and the counter claim was dismissed. PETITIONER has filed Ext.P4, application on 12-07-2010 to set aside the ex parte decree and for restoration of the counter claim. To that application respondent has filed Ext.P6, objection. Learned counsel submits that on the next day of Ext.P4, application respondent filed Ext.P5, petition to execute the decree. Thereon, petitioner filed E.A.No.344 of 2010 for stay of execution till Ext.P4, application is disposed of. Executing court vide Ext.P7, order has disposed of E.A.No.344 of 2010 observing that if petitioner has filed application to set aside the decree he could approach the trial court for stay of execution. Learned counsel states that execution petition is posted to this day and if order is passed thereon the boundary wall, pursuant to the ex parte decree will be demolished the next day. Learned counsel therefore seeks a direction to the learned Munsiff to dispose of Ext.P4, application before proceeding with E.P.No.215 of 2010.

(2.) PETITIONER has not so far filed any application for stay on the trial side where Ext.P4, application is said to be preferred. Executing court also observed that if petitioner has filed application to set aside the ex parte decree he could approach the trial court for stay of execution. There is no reason why petitioner should not do that. However having regard to the circumstances stated, I direct that execution proceedings in E.P.No.215 of 2010 will stand in abeyance for a period of 10 (ten) days from this day. I also make it clear that appropriate application for stay can be filed on the trial side in O.S.No.781 of 2007 where Ext.P4, application is said to be pending. I direct learned Principal Munsiff to dispose of Ext.P4, application as expeditiously as possible. This petition is disposed of as above.