IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2009 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 7430 of 2009(O) ------------------------- OS.880/2006 of SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.K.KRISHNAN NAMBOODIRI, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNAN NAMBOODIRI, KOSSERY MANA, KOLAZHI VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. POOVANI KSHETHRA KSHEMA SAMITHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY K.RAMAN NAIR @ K.R.NAIR, KOLAZHI, P.O.THRISSUR. 2. PALIYAM GROUP DEVASWOM TRUST, CHENDAMANGALAM VILLAGE, N.PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY VALIYACHAN, P.VIKRAMAN ACHAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.7430 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT The second plaintiff in O.S.No.880 of 2006, on the file of the Sub Court, Thrissur, has filed the Writ Petition for the following reliefs: (i) issue writ of mandamus under Article 227 of Constitution of India directing the Sub Court, Thrissur to review the orders passed in I.A.No.6424/08 and I.A.No.6425/08 in O.S.No.880/06 dated 12.2.2009. (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus under Article 227 of Constitution of India directing the Sub Court, Thrissur to consider and dispose of Ext.P5 and P6 IA’s (IA No.1560/09 in IA No.6424/08 in OS No.880/06 and IA No.1538/09 in IA No.6425/08 in OS No.880/06) within time limit and before pronouncing the final judgment. (iii) Issue such other relief this Hon’ble Court may deed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The defendants produced certain documents at a belated stage. The trial court accepted those documents. The trial court also permitted the defendants to adduce evidence, after reopening the evidence. The petitioner filed I.A.Nos.1560 of 2009 and 1538 of 2009 to review the orders passed by the WPC No.7430/2009 2 court below. The apprehension of the petitioner is that before disposal of the suit, the trial court would not consider and dispose of I.A.No.1560 of 2009 and I.A.No.1538 of 2009. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the court below has disposed of those interlocutory applications and therefore, relief No.2 is not maintainable. Relief No.1, even otherwise is not maintainable. Therefore, nothing remains to be considered in the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is accordingly closed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl