IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2009 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 35164 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 830/2007 IN OS.479/1998 of MUNSIFF COURT,CHENGANNUR .................... PETITIONER(S)/2ND COUNTER PETITIONER/2ND DEFENDANT: --------------------------------------------------- SHANADEEN @ SHAMS, MALAYIL HOUSE, VENMONY THAZOM MURI, VENMONY VILLAGE, CHENGANNOOR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONERS & COUNTER PETITIONERS 1 & 3 TO 7: ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. HUSSAN KUTTY, "HUSSAN VILLA", MADAPPALLI MURI, MADAPPALLI VILLAGE, CHANGANASSERY TALUK. 2. SYBU M.H., THEKKETHIL MALAYIL KATHADIPPALLATHU HOUSE, VENMONYTHAZHATHU MURI, VENMONY VILLAGE. 3. HASSANARU KUNJU, -DO- -DO- 4. SALMA BEEVI, VADAKKECHAKKANATHU HOUSE, (BIJU MANZIL), AVALUKKUNNU P.O., ALAPPUZHA. 5. FATHIMA BEEVI, ELAVAMMOOTTIL, KOLLAKADAVU P.O., CHERIYANADU VILLAGE, CHENGANNOOR TALUK. 6. SARAMMA, -DO- -DO- 7. JALEEL AKBAR, -DO- -DO- THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.35164 OF 2009 (O) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the 2nd defendant in O.S.No.479 of 1998 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Chengannur. Suit is one for partition, in which, after passing of the preliminary decree, proceedings for passing a final decree are in progress. An Advocate Commissioner deputed by the court after conducting measurement with the assistance of a surveyor has prepared a report and plan, making allotments to the sharers in tune with the preliminary decree. On the objections raised by both sides, the court below has remitted the report to the Commissioner issuing some directions. Ext.P6 is the copy of that order. The grievance canvassed by the petitioner/2nd defendant is that the court below without justifiable cause has turned down his request to provide a compact plot. In exercise of the writ jurisdiction, petitioner wants this Court to give a direction to the court below/commissioner to examine WPC.35164/09 2 the feasibility in earmarking and allotting the property of the petitioner providing of a compact plot with reference to the share adjudged in his favour over the plaint properties. Perusing Ext.P6 order, I find the court below has turned down the request so made by the petitioner while remitting the commission report with further directions. This Court will not be justified in issuing the direction sought for by the petitioner for allotment of a compact plot as desired by him since that is a matter to be considered by the trial court in passing of the final decree. I find no merit in the writ petition and it is closed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp