IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 21ST MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 4320 of 2010(O) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN EA 26/10 IN EP 19/09 IN OS.165/2006 of PRL.M.C., KOCHI .................... PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- SURESH BABU, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN, VATTATHARA HOUSE,NARACKAL.P.O, VYPIN, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.X.VARGHESE SRI.A.V.JOJO RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- GEETHA SANTHOSH, W/O.SANTHOSH, AGED 38 YEATRS, NOTTACHAL,VELIYAKATHU HOUSE, NARACKAL P.O,VYPIN . THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(c).No.4320 of 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 10 th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT The writ petitioner is the judgment debtor in a suit (for partition of 10 cents of land) instituted by the respondent who is none other that the sister of the petitioner. The suit was filed in the year 2006. The preliminary decree passed by the Munsiff's Court, Kochi in O.S.No.165 of 2006 has become final. The final decree was challenged and fought up to this Court and this Court confirmed the final decree in R.S.A.No.1026/2009. As per the final decree the southern portion admeasuring 2½ cents was allotted to the respondent/plaintiff and the northern portion admeasuring 7½ cents was allotted to the petitioner. The respective portions were delivered over to the parties as well. Thereafter, the petitioner filed E.A.No.26 of 2010 under Section 47 read with Section 151 C.P.C seeking re-delivery of the portion allotted to his sister (the respondent herein). He also took out a Commission which was actually W.P.(c)No.4320 of 2010 2 unnecessary. The court below as per Ext.P6 order dated 28.01.2006 dismissed the application for re-delivery. As rightly observed by the court below, since the final decree was confirmed by this Court in R.S.A No.1026 of 2009 on 19.10.2009, the petitioner could not have sought a re- allocation of the property by filing the present application. In fact the property was delivered to the decree- holder/plaintiff on 24.09.2009 and it was thereafter that this Court confirmed the decree on 19.10.09. The cupid eyes of the petitioner fell on the improvements, the water tank etc. in the 2½ cents allotted to the respondent/plaintiff and that is the reason which tempted him to file the application which was rightly dismissed by the court below. I do not find any good ground to interfere with Ext.P6 order passed by the Munsiff's Court, Kochi. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Dated this the 10th day of February, 2010. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj