IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 3RD JULY 2009 / 12TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 18360 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.541/2006 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,NORTH PARAVUR .................... PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- HABEEB MUHAMMED, S/O. HAMEED RAWTHER, HOUSE NO.43/2679 A, SASTHA TEMPLE ROAD, THRIKKANARVATTOM DESOM. BY ADVS. MR.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR), MR.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THANKAMANI AMMA, W/O. LATE NARAYANAN NAIR, PEEDIKAPARAMBIL, THEKKUMCHERRY MURI, THIRUMUKKALAM VILLAGE, EDAVATHOOR P.O. 2. RAMESAN, S/O. LATE NARAYANAN NAIR, PEEDIKAPARAMBIL, THEKKUMCHERRY MURI, THIRUMUKKALAM VILLAGE, EDAVATHOOR P.O. 3. VASANTHI, D/O. LATE NARAYANAN NAIR, PEEDIKAPARAMBIL, THEKKUMCHERRY MURI, THIRUMUKKALAM VILLAGE, EDAVATHOOR P.O. 4. SUBAIR, S/O. SAINUDDIN, SRAMBIKAL HOUSE, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR, SOUTH KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.18360 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: “i) To call for the records leading to Ext.P4 and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari. ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate order or direction directing the Principal Sub Court, North Paravur to allow Ext.P2 petition and pass appropriate orders in it.” 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.541/2006 on the file of the Sub Court, North Paravur. Suit is one for specific performance and the respondents are the defendants. The petitioners moved an application for appointment of a commission stating that the terms of the agreement of sale provided for measuring of the property and so much so, enforcement of the agreement depends upon the satisfaction of that condition. Learned Sub Judge after hearing both sides, expressing the view that in the nature of adjudication arising in the suit, appointment of a commission for the purpose sought for W.P.(C).No.18360 of 2009 - O 2 by the plaintiff was not entertainable, and the application of the plaintiff was dismissed. Ext.P4 is the copy of that order. Impeaching the correctness and propriety of that order, petitioner has filed this writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Having regard to the question raising for consideration with reference to the challenge raised against Ext.P4 order, I find notice to the respondents is not necessary and it is dispensed with. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. 4. It is submitted that taking out measurement of the property is essential for passing a decree in terms of the agreement of sale and that the view expressed by the court below that if necessary it can be taken at the stage of execution of the decree is incorrect. I cannot agree with the submission. He has filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale as such and he is duty bound to show his readiness and willingness to take the contract in terms stipulated under the agreement. I do not find any impropriety or illegality in the view W.P.(C).No.18360 of 2009 - O 3 expressed by the court below that if need be the measurement of the property can be taken after passing of the decree in its execution. Execution as such may also be not necessary as the decree requires only registration of the sale deed. While passing the decree, grievance that the property has to be measured out can be taken note of, and appropriate directions can be issued by the court, provided the petitioner/plaintiff proves his entitlement to the reliefs claimed in the suit. Subject to the above observations, this writ petition is closed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-