IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2008 / 23RD ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 5341 of 2008(J) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M/S. SREE GOKULAM CHIT & FINANCE COMPANY (P) LTD., 1ST FLOOR, BISHOP JEROME NAGAR, KOLLAM-1, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.RAJA SRI.R.RENJITH RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, PANMANA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. K.K. SATHEESH KUMAR, SAROSH BHAVAN, CHAVARA BRIDGE P.O., KOLLAM. 4. R. VENUGOPAL, PADMAVILASAM BUNGALOW, NEDUMGOLAM P.O., PARAVOOR, KOLLAM. R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.SANIL KUMAR SRI. M.R. SABU, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO. 5341/2008 : 2 : APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF DEPOSIT OF TITLE DEEDS DATED 17.11.2001. EXT.P2: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ENGLISH VERSION OF HTE AWARD DATED 18.11.2003 IN A.R.C NO. 278 OF 2003 PASSED BY THE COURT OF ARBITRATOR, CHENNAI. EXT.P3: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KOLLAM ON 22.09.2006 IN E.P. NO. 23 OF 2005. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 08.02.2008 SUBMITTED BEFORE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 12. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R3(a): COPY OF ORDER DATED 05.02.2008 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. /True Copy/ P.A to Judge. S.SIRI JAGAN, J ============== W.P.(C).No. 5341 OF 2008 ==================== Dated this the 14th day of July, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner approached this Court with the grievance that the 1st respondent has not considering the objections of the petitioner in the matter of mutation of certain property in the name of 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit along with which Ext.R3(a), an order passed under the Transfer of Registry Rules, directing mutation of the property in the name of the 3rd respondent has been produced. In view of passing of Ext.R3(a) order in the matter, the remedy of the petitioner lies in filing an appeal against Ext.R3(a), before the appellate authority as provided under the Transfer of Registry Rules. Therefore, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge Ext.R3(a) in an appeal before the appellate authority, this writ petition is dismissed. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE bkn/-