Petitioner is the 2^nd respondent defendant in

the final decree application. He was ex-parte in

the preliminary decree and also in the final

decree. Petitioner filed an appeal challenging

the final decree proceedings by filing

I.A.Nos.406/2019 and 407/2019 with a request to

set aside the ex-parte order and to condone the

delay of 4100 days. The claim of the petitioner

is that a place of worship in one of the

properties should be set up for common benefit.

2.

Evidently,

petitioner

did

not

participate in either the preliminary decree

proceedings or the final decree proceedings. At

the fag end of the final decree proceedings, when

the property was proposed to be delivered, the

petitioner has come up challenging the final

decree proceedings, after huge delay. It is for

the lower appellate court to consider the

legality and correctness of that application.

I am not inclined to stay the delivery

proceedings in the final decree proceedings till

the above I.As. are heard.

O.P.(C) fails and is dismissed.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

Pn 19/03

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1

TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL DECREE IN IA

NO. 1713 OF 2003 IN OS NO. 521 OF 2000

DATED 29-0