IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2008 / 28TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 30697 of 2008(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- KARTHIKEYAN, S/O.AYYAPPAN, AGED 74 YEARS PULLYADATH, RESIDING AT MANATTIL HOUSE, THEKKUMBHAGOM P.O., PUTHIYAKAVU, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAMKUMAR RESPONDENT: -------------------- 1. KAIRALI, AGED 51 YEARS, W/O.LATE P.G.RAVINDRAN, ANJACHITHITTAYIL HOUSE, CHILAVANNOR, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM. 2. SINDU, D/O.LATE P.G.RAVINDREEN, AGED 27 YEARS, ANJACHITHITTAYIL HOUSE, CHILAVANNOR, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM. 3. GIRISH, S/O.LATE P.G.RAVINDREEN, AGED 25 YEARS, ANJACHITHITTAYIL HOUSE, CHILAVANNOR, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM. 4. RATHEESH, S/O.LATE P.G.RAVINDREEN, AGED 23 YEARS, ANJACHITHITTAYIL HOUSE, CHILAVANNOR, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER ADV. SMT. R. BINDU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: vkm THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------ W.P(c) No. 30697 of 2008 ------------------------------ Dated this the 20th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT Writ petitioner filed O.S. No.1293/2002 in the court of learned Additional Munsiff's, Ernakulam seeking recovery of possession of plaint B schedule property allegedly encroached upon by the predecessor of the respondent. That suit was dismissed after recording evidence on the ground that the property sought to be recovered is not properly identified. Writ petitioner carried the matter in appeal. Learned Additional District Judge vide Exhibit P2, judgment dated 28/11/2007 confirmed the finding of learned Additional Munsiff and dismissed the appeal. Though a request was made on behalf of writ petitioner before learned Additional District Judge to remand the case for proper identification of the property, that request was disallowed as seen from Exhibit P2. Petitioner is now trying his chance by invoking the power of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution. 2. Heard. W.P(c) No. 30697/ 2008 2 3. Counsel for writ petitioner submitted that the predecessor of the respondent had in respect of the property which takes in portion of the plaint B schedule also instituted O.S. No. 1665/1992, but that suit was dismissed which indicate that respondents had no title over Plaint B schedule property. It is also contented by learned counsel that the title deed of the petitioner (its copy is Exhibit P3 in this proceedings) could not be produced either in trial court or the appellate court to substantiate the title claimed by the writ petitioner over plaint B schedule Property. 4. If Writ Petitioner is aggrieved by dismissal of the appeal following which a decree has already been drawn up, remedy is to prefer second appeal as provided under law, if the writ petitioner otherwise is entitled to that course. While exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, this court is not sitting as an appellate court on finding of facts. The power under Article 227 is to be exercised to correct illegality or any jurisdictional error. Writ court is not required to go into disputed questions of fact and peruse evidence. On hearing learned counsel and perusing the judgments under W.P(c) No. 30697/ 2008 3 challenge, I am not satisfied that there is any illegality or jurisdictional error committed by the courts below requiring this court to invoke the power under Article 227 of the Constitution. 5. Counsel for writ petitioner submits that certain material facts relevant to the disposal of the case has come to the notice of the writ petitioner. If any such fact has come to the notice of writ petitioner, there are ample provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure which could be exercised by writ petitioner, if he is otherwise entitled to that course. Writ petition is therefore dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE scm