O R D E R

The judgment debtors 7 to 10 in E.P. No. 23/2015 in O.S. No.

24/1980 on the file of Sub Court, Mavelikkara have filed this petition under Section 24 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to transfer the above E.P on the allegation that Judge dealing with the execution petition is biased.

2. Heard both sides in detail.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would urge that though this Court passed an order of stay of the execution for a period of two months as per order dated 06.09.2021, the learned Sub Judge was not inclined to give respect to the order of this court, despite having informed the same by filing an affidavit in this regard by the petitioners herein. Whereas it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents/decree holders that, in fact, though as per earlier an order of this court, stay was granted in this case, on expiry of the same, the Sub Judge proceeded with the matter and in the meantime as per oder dated 06.09.2021 the interim stay was extended. He submitted further that the Sub Judge proceeded with the execution petition when there was no stay in operation though it was revived subsequently.

4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the proceedings of the Sub Judge produced as Annexure A7, A8 and A9 would substantiate that the learned Sub Judge proceeded with the E.P in spite of stay granted by this Court.

5. The learned counsel for the decree holder resisted this contention on submitting that at the time when the learned Sub Judge passed the orders that has been extracted as per Annexures 7 to 9, there was no stay in force and thereby the learned Sub Judge in no way disobeyed the order of this court.

6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Sub Judge shown bias to the judgment debtors in the matter of execution of the decree and, therefore, the petitioners apprehend further bias, if the same Judge would go with further proceedings. The learned counsel highlighted three decisions in this regard. (1) [2008 (4) KHC 203], Bhaskaran v. Kamalakshi and others, (2) [2015 KHC 4078] Kanaklata v. state of (NCT) of Delhi & others, (3) [1963 KHC 360], Rev.Fr. Punnen Thomas and Another v. Moran Mar Bassalios and Others.

7. Having appraised the materials before this Court in tune with the arguments tendered, it is clear that the learned Sub Judge who dealt with a suit of the year 1980 and a decree passed in the year 1990 attempted to dispose of the matter with earnest effort, at a period when there was no stay in operation, though the stay was subsequently extended by order of this Court. If at all the learned Sub Judge done anything in disobedience to the order of this Court with such knowledge, the same is the matter to be dealt otherwise. But such a finding cannot be possible in this matter. Thus, I am of the view that, such an action by the learned Sub Judge cannot be held as one with an element of bias in a case of this nature, as I have already pointed. Thus I am not inclined to find any bias in this matter. 8. Accordingly I am of view that the petitioners' apprehension of bias on the part of the presiding officer dealing with the execution proceeding petition cannot be justified and, therefore this transfer petition cannot be allowed on that ground.

In the result, this transfer petition is dismissed. The interim stay in this case shall stand vacated.

Sd/-

A. BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE Cak APPENDIX OF TR.P(C) 714/2021 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1 A TRUE COPY OF E.P NO. 23/2015 IN O.S NO.

24/1980 ON THE FILE OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, MAVELIKKARA Annexure 2 A TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION IN E.P NO.

23/2015 IN O.S NO. 24/1980 ON THE FILE OF THE SUBORDIANTE JUDGE'S COURT, MAVELIKKARA Annexure 3 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 06.09.2021 IN O.P(C) NO. 1469/21 OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT.

Annexure 4 A TRUE COPY OF CASE DETAILS IN E.P NO.

23/15 IN O.S NO. 24/80 OF SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA Annexure 5 A TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE

1ST PETITIONER AND FILED BEFORE