IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 24TH AUGUST 2009 / 2ND BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 24244 of 2009(O) -------------------------- I.A.NO.1553/08 IN OS.201/1996 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- VILASINI AMMA, D/O.MADHAVI AMMA, RESIDING AT 'NAGA ANANTHANILAYAM', THEKKE GRAMAM, CHITOOR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.P.GOPINATH MENON RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS 2 TO 7: ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SRI.RAMACHANDRA MENON, S/O.BHAGEERATHI AMMA, VARAVEER VEEDU, CHITTUR VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK. 2. SRI.BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.BHAGEERATHI AMMA, VARAVEER VEEDU, CHITTUR VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK. 3. SMT.REMANI, D/O.BHAGEERATHI AMMA, VARAVEER VEEDU, CHITTUR VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK. 4. SRI.CHANDRASEKHARAN, S/O.BHAGEERATHI AMMA, VARAVEER VEEDU, CHITTUR VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK. 5. SRI.SIVARAMA MENON, S/O.BHAGEERATHI AMMA, VARAVEER VEEDU, CHITTUR VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK. 6. SRI.ARAVINDAKSHA MENON, S/O.KALYANIKUTTY AMMA, VARAVEER VEEDU, CHITTUR VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK. R6 BY ADV. MR. V. CHITAMBARESH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.24244 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 24th August, 2009 JUDGMENT The Writ Petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: 1. To direct the court below to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5 (I.A.No.1553 of 2008 in I.A.No.2529 of 1999 in O.S.No.201 of 1996 on the file of the Honourable Sub Court, Palakkad) within a time limit that may be fixed by this Honourable Court. 2. To direct that the sale of the plaint schedule property in O.S.No.201 of 1996 among sharers proposed to be held on 24.08.2009 to be postponed. 3. To declare that the plea of the petitioner for allotment of the house and adjoining property having not been objected to, an auction sale of the properties is not contemplated in law. 4. To declare that Ext.P4 order to the extent it orders sale of the properties by auction is illegal and unsustainable in law. 5. To award the costs of this proceeding to the petitioner. 6. To issue such other writs, directions or orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and the petitioner may pray from time to time. 2. Petitioner is the 8th defendant in O.S.No.201 of 1996 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Palakkad. Suit is one for partition. The W.P.C.No.24244/09 - 2 - petitioner with another had moved an application under Sections 2 and 3 of the Partition Act claiming an equitable relief over a building for its allotment in their favour. That application was disposed by the court by P4 order fixing the upset price of the property and permitting the shareholders to participate in the auction. The case of the petitioner is that an application for review was filed for revising that order. While that application was pending, the court had posted the case for conducting auction of the property. At that stage the petitioner has approached this court seeking the reliefs aforementioned invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. 6th respondent has entered appearance. I heard the counsel for the petitioner and also the 6th respondent. From the submissions made, it appears, after disposal of the application moved by the petitioner seeking an equitable relief and that being disallowed by the court directing for auction of the plaint property, the case had been adjourned from time to time for sale and the petitioner also moved application from personal exemption, but expressed willingness to participate in the auction. The review petition filed by the petitioner is pending which is canvassed for the reliefs claimed in the Writ Petition W.P.C.No.24244/09 - 3 - is seen filed long after the period of limitation prescribed for entertaining such a petition. Further more, I find the order under challenge, P4, had been passed as early as on 21.2.2008. There is no merit in the Writ Petition and it is dismissed. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE