IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2009 / 20TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 28655 of 2009(B) -------------------------------- EP 249/06,EA 674/06 IN RCP.8/1996 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER(S): ----------------- MOHAMMED ILLYAS, S/O.ABDUL HAI, PARAKKUNNAM SCHOOL LANE, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.VINOD KUMAR.C RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- ASHIK AHAMMED, S/O.SULEKHA, CHANDRANAGAR, MARUTHAROAD, PALAKKAD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ W.P.C No.28655 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 12th day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J Ext.P4 is under challenge in this Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution. By Ext.P4, the execution court has dismissed the application for amendment filed by the petitioner for getting the “claim petition” filed by him amended. The Writ Petitioner/claim petitioner is the son of Sri.Abdul Hai who is the respondent in E.P.249/06 filed by the respondent herein seeking execution of the eviction order passed by the Rent Control Court in RCP.8/96 which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority in appeal and also by this Court in revision. Eviction was W.P.C No.28655 of 2009 -2- ordered against the petitioner's father concurrently on the grounds under sub section 3 of section 11 and clause 3 of sub section 4 of section 11. Several contentions were raised by the petitioner's father in the RCP and all those contentions were repelled. Finally, as this Court was dismissing the Rent Control Revision Petition filed by the petitioner's father, he sought for a longer time to vacate the premises on the reason that he has to find out an alternate building for transplanting his hotel business. Considering that request, this Court granted time till 30/06/06. The petitioner's father did not vacate the building even after the expiry of the time granted by this Court. The execution court ordered delivery. But delivery could not be taken in view of the so called claim petition, E.A.674/06 filed by the present petitioner who W.P.C No.28655 of 2009 -3- contended that he is the person in possession of the building which was sought to be evicted and that he is conducting business therein under the name and style “Sugam Parlour”. But according to him, he committed a mistake while describing the boundaries of the building in his possession and it is to correct those mistakes that this instant application E.A.674/06 was filed by him. According to him, Ext.P4 order dismissing the application for amendment is vitiated to the extent of warranting invocation of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227. 2. Sri.C.Vinod Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner addressed us very strenuously and extensively. He submitted that the eviction order passed against his father in RCP.8/96 has already been executed and the building which was the subject W.P.C No.28655 of 2009 -4- matter of that RCP is already surrendered by his father in favour of the respondent/landlord. By filing the claim petition, the petitioner is only trying to salvage another room under his possession wherein he is conducting “Sugam Parlour”. It is only correction of certain mistakes which was sought to be rectified by filing the amendment application. By not allowing the correction, the execution court has denied justice to the petitioner. 3. We have very anxiously considered the submissions of Sri.Vinod Kumar. We have gauged Ext.P4 order by the parameters which are applicable to the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is not be invoked for correcting each and every illegal order passed by the Subordinate Courts. W.P.C No.28655 of 2009 -5- It is a visitorial jurisdiction which is invoked only in exceptional circumstances. We are unable to agree with the argument that Ext.P4 is per se illegal in the sense that it violates clear provision of law either statutory or settled. Ext.P4 order is not an order passed without jurisdiction. Ext.P4 order, in our opinion, does not result in miscarriage of justice or patent injustice. Ext.P4 order cannot be branded as a perverse order in the sense that no person having reasonable learning and training in law will author such an order. We dismiss the Writ Petition. However, we direct the Principal Munsiff's Court, Palakkad to ensure that the Amin to be deputed by him in E.P.249/06 effects delivery of only that building which is subject matter of the order of eviction passed in RCP.8/96 as confirmed by the Appellate Authority and W.P.C No.28655 of 2009 -6- by this Court. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE K. SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE kns/-