A party must pursue all avenues for its own claims before seeking to stay proceedings against it.

J U D G M E N T

The writ petition is filed seeking mainly the following reliefs:

i. to issue a writ or order, directing the Honourable District Court, Thrissur to consider and dispose C.M.A.No.95 of 2009,I.A.No.2075/2009,I.A.No.2076/2009 within a time limit framed by this Honourable Court and till that period all the proceedings in E.P.No.88/2008 in O.S.No.242/2007 pending before the Honourable Sub Court, Irinjalakuda shall kept in abeyance.

2. Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.242 of 2007 on the file of the Sub Court, Irinjalakuda in which an ex parte decree was passed against her. Suit is one for recovery of possession, and the respondents are the decree holders. Pursuant to the passing of the ex parte decree, the WPC.25801/09 2 respondents/decree holders took steps for execution. The petitioner had moved for setting aside the ex parte decree passed in the suit by filing an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure . That application, after enquiry, was dismissed. Against which, petitioner has preferred an appeal before the District Court, Thrissur with a petition to condone delay. Meanwhile, the respondents are taking hasty steps for executing the decree, is the grievance canvassed by the petitioner for filing this writ petition seeking the aforementioned relief invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under article 227 of the Constitution of India.

3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondents is necessary, and hence, it is dispensed with. From the submissions made and the materials tendered with the writ petition, I find the suit O.S.No.242 of 2007, the decree of which is now being executed, was jointly tried with WPC.25801/09 3 another suit filed by the petitioner as O.S.No.140 of 2007. That suit was also dismissed for default. Admittedly, the petitioner has not taken any steps for setting aside the dismissal of her suit for default. When that be so, the request now made that the execution proceedings in the decree passed in O.S.No.242 of 2007 has to be stayed till her appeal against the dismissal of the application moved under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC, that too filed with a delay petition, was disposed by the appellate court, lacks merit. I do not find any merit in the writ petition, and it is dismissed.

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp