The pendency of a Special Leave Petition does not automatically stay execution proceedings in the absence of an interim order.

JUDGMENT

The original petition is filed to direct the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Devikulam, to keep all further proceedings in E.P No.4/2017 in abeyance until the Hon’ble Supreme Court takes a decision on the SLP that has been filed by the petitioner.

2. The petitioner’s case is that, he is the judgment-debtor in the above execution petition, which is filed by the respondent. This Court had by Ext P1 judgment confirmed the judgment and decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kattappana, in OS No.178/2010. Challenging Ext P1 judgment, the petitioner has now preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court as Diary No.9641-2022 dated 29.3.2022. In the meantime, the respondent is hastily proceeding with the execution petition. If the execution petition is proceeded with, it would render the Special Leave Petition infructuous. Hence, the original petition. 3. Heard; Sri.Ananthakrishnan A.Kartha, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Amal George, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

4. Sri.Amal George pointed out that when RFA No.217/2019 was taken up for consideration before this Court, the petitioner restricted his challenge to the interest portion alone of the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. This Court after considering the pleadings and materials in the suit, modified the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, by reducing the future interest to 6% instead of 12% originally decreed. Therefore, there cannot be any challenge in the Special Leave Petition to the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, but only limited to interest portion alone passed by this Court. Even otherwise, the Special Leave Petition was filed as early as on 29.3.2022 and the same has not admitted and no interim order of stay has been passed. Therefore, the mere filing of the Special Leave Petition may not be treated as a ground to stay the execution proceeding.

5. I have gone through the pleadings and materials on record. The sole ground to stall the execution proceeding is that the petitioner has preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 29.3.2022. This Court had initially granted an order of stay on 24.6.2022. It is more than four months that the order of stay is in force. The mere pendency of the Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court cannot be taken as a ground to stall the execution proceeding.

Ultimately, if the Hon’ble Supreme Court interferes with Ext P1 judgment, necessarily, the execution petition would be confined to the orders to be passed by the the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thus, I am of the view that the execution proceeding cannot be stalled by invoking the supervisory powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India . The original petition fails and is dismissed.

SD/-

sks/14.07.2022 C.S.DIAS, JUDGE APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1003/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 03-10-

2019 PRONOUNCED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN RFA NO. 217 OF 2019.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE STATUS OF THE E.P. 4 OF

2017 IN O.S. 178 OF 2010, SHOWING THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY SCHEDULED ON 30-03-

2022.