IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 31269 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.901/1989 of PRL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER: --------------- DR.GOPIRAJ,S/O. PILLIYATH UNNIKRISHNA VILVATTAM VILLAGE, RAMAVARMAPURAM, THRISSUR. BY ADV. MR.O.V.MANIPRASAD RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. SMT.RUGMINI,W/O. KOPATTIL BALAKRISHNAN PUTHUKADU VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, 2. SMT.VALSALA, W/O. CHAMMANI BALACHANDRAN, BADHRANJALI, ILLIKKARA DESHAM, PULLAZHI VILLAGE, THRISSUR. 3. SMT.LALITHA, W/O. PUZHAKADAVIL SURESH LAL, KARALAM VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM NOW RESIDING AT SREESAKTHI, MONACHERY GARDENS, MANNUTHI, THRISSUR. 4. SRI.VISWANATHAM,S/O. POLIYATH UNNIKRISHNAN,VILVATTAM VILLAGE, RAMAVARMAPURAM, THRISSUR, NOW RESIDING AT PALLIYIL HOUSE, MUTTUCHIRA, PADIYAM, THIRISSUR. 5. SMT.RADHA, W/O. CHAVARATTIL KUMARAN, NEELIKUNNU DESHAM, OLLUKARA VILLAGE,THRISSUR. 6. SMT.SHANTHA, W/O. PARAMEL KESHAVAN, PUTHOORKARA DESHAM, AYYANTHOLE VILALGE,THRISSUR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.31269 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the second judgment debtor in E.P.No.311 of 2005 in O.S.No.901 of 1989 on the file of the Sub Court, Thrissur. The above execution petition was filed by the mother and sister of the present petitioner. The decree passed in the above suit was one for partition. Negativing the contentions raised by the present petitioner a preliminary decree and later final decree were passed in the suit. During the pendency of the execution proceedings first petitioner in the execution petition, the mother, passed away. Judgment debtor (present petitioner) and also the second petitioner in the execution petition/his sister moved separate applications, each producing with their petitions testament purported to have been executed by the mother, both contending that the decree schedule property by way testamentary disposition had been bequeathed in their favour. Rival claims set forth by the parties as above on the basis of different testaments were enquired into by the execution court in W.P.(C).No.31269 of 2009 - O 2 which both sides produced and examined the witnesses as well. Now the execution court has ordered for delivery of the property allotted in favour of the first and second petitioners in the execution petition to the second petitioner. Petitioner has applied for getting copy of the order passed by the court directing delivery, but, and it has not been supplied so far, is the grievance canvassed for issue of a writ/order/direction to the court below to supply a copy of the order expeditiously and also to keep in abeyance the delivery for the period to be fixed by this court to enable the petitioner to challenge the correctness of that order as provided by law. 2. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondents is necessary and it is dispensed with. 3. Delivery ordered in a suit for partition instituted as early in 1989 is sought to be kept in abeyance by invoking the visitorial jurisdiction vested with this Court. On the submissions made and the facts presented, I find this is not a fit case where W.P.(C).No.31269 of 2009 - O 3 any such direction/order can be issued. However, there will be a direction to the court below to issue copy of the order passed for delivery of the property, if any application has been filed by the petitioner, within ten days from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Hand over a copy of the judgment to the counsel for the petitioner on usual terms and send a copy to the court concerned forthwith. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-