MOORTHY AMMAL Vs. PYARIJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Judgment debtors in E.P. No. 451 of 2009 in O.S. No. 504 of 2005 of the court of learned Munsiff, Palakkad are the petitioners before me. Respondent No. 1 obtained an exparte decree for specific performance of an agreement for sale and after the sale deed was executed in his name he has filed E.P. No. 451 of 2009 seeking delivery of the property. Now the property is ordered to be delivered on 18.09.2010. In the meantime, petitioners filed appeal in the District Court, Palakkad as A.S. No. 84 of 2010 with Ext.P6, application for condonation of delay of 1115 days. That appeal and delay condonation application are coming up for hearing before learned District Judge on 17.09.2010. Petitioners apprehend that even before the appeal and application for condonation of delay are considered by the learned District Judge executing court might deliver the property to respondent No. 1. Learned Counsel has invited my attention to Ext.P1, the agreement for sale pursuant to which the decree was passed. Learned Counsel contends that petitioners have not signed Ext.P1, agreement for sale and hence, it is invalid. Learned Counsel states that petitioners have valid contentions to be raised in the appeal.

(2.) Having regard to the circumstances stated before me, what is required is to direct learned Munsiff, Palakkad not to deliver the property before 28.09.2010. In the meantime, it will be open to the petitioners to seek appropriate reliefs from the District Court, Palakkad where the appeal and application for condonation of delay coming up for hearing on 17.09.2010.