RAJESH Vs. V.H.HASHIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who are judgment debtors 1 and 2 in E.P.No.170/2014 in O.S.No.310/2013 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Kottayam, have filed this original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order to set aside Ext.P1 order dated 15.9.2017 of the said court, whereby the sale of the decree schedule property in E.P.No.170/2014 in O.S.No.310/2013 was ordered. The petitioners have also sought for an order to stay confirmation of sale of decree schedule property till the disposal of Exts.P2 and P3 applications, i.e., I.A.Nos.1438/2017 and 1439/2017, filed under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 respectively. They have also sought for an order directing the Sub Court to consider Exts.P2 and P3 applications within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

(2.) On 6.11.2017, when this original petition came up for admission, this Court directed the Registry to get a report from the Additional Sub Court, Kottayam, as to the present status of I.A.Nos.1438/2017 and 1439/2017 in O.S.No.310/2013 and also the time limit required for its final disposal. Pursuant to the said order, a report dated 9.11.2017 has been received, wherein it has been stated that the petitioners, who are defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No.310/2013, have filed I.A.No.1438/2017 for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 4.7.2014 and also I.A.No.1439/2017 for condonation of delay of 1133 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree. The said interlocutory applications filed on 13.9.2017 now stand posted to 28.11.2017 for objection. In the said report, it has also been stated that three months' time may be granted for final disposal of I.A.Nos.1438 and 1439 of 2017.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants 1 and 2 and also the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2/ plaintiffs. Despite service of notice, none appeared for the 3rd respondent.