IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 23RD MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 3759 of 2009(V) OS.1730/2008 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,THRISSUR PETITIONER: --------------- LAKSHMI, W/O.LATE BHASKARAN, KUNNATHULLY HOUSE, ERANELLUR, PERUMANNU, THALAPPILLY, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SREEJITH RESPONDENT: --------------- VENUGOPALAN, S/O.ARUMUGHAN @ KUTTIKKAN, PUTHANPURAKKAL VARAVATTUR HOUSE, ERANELLUR, PERUMANNU, THALAPPILLY, THRISSUR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) NO. 3759 OF 2009 V ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 12th February, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.1730 of 2008, on the file of the Sub Court, Thrissur. The suit was filed for a declaration that the decree in O.S.No.224 of 1994 was obtained by the respondent by fraud. There is also a prayer for consequential injunction. The petitioner filed I.A.No.623 of 2009 to summon the extract of the School Admission Register of the respondent. It is stated in the Writ Petition that the application to summon the document was dismissed by the court below on 2.2.2009. But copy of the order was not produced. The petitioner stated that she has not received the copy of the order. 2. The relief prayed for in the Writ Petition is to quash the order of dismissal of the application to summon the document and also to issue a direction to the court below to summon the document in question. 3. The Registry was directed to get information from the court below as to whether the petitioner had filed an application for certified copy of the order in I.A.No.623 of 2009 and, if so, whether the Sub Court would be in a position to issue the certified copy immediately. The W.P.(C) NO.3759 OF 2009 V :: 2 :: Registry got information that the copy application would be complied with on 10.2.2009 itself. Therefore, I do not think it is necessary to entertain the Writ Petition. The remedy of the petitioner is to challenge the order, if she is aggrieved by the same. 4. Advocate Sri.N.Subramaniam, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Writ Petition is filed only to protract the case. O.S.No.224 of 1994 was decreed, confirmed in appeal and Second Appeal. In execution, the petitioner filed an undertaking that she would vacate the property within 45 days. She did not comply with the undertaking. Instead, she filed O.S.No.1730 of 2008. Sri.N.Subramaniam also submitted that I.A.No.9348 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for temporary injunction was dismissed by the court below on 10.2.2009. For the aforesaid reasons, I am not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, the dismissal of this Writ Petition would not stand in the way of the right of the petitioner to challenge the order in I.A.No.623 of 2009. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/