IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2009 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 15772 of 2009(N) -------------------------- RCRP.1/2009 of DISTRICT COURT, ALAPPUZHA RCP.50/1990 of PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF,ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- S.K.SUDHEER KUMAR ,AGED 52, S/O.KARTHIKEYAN KARTHIKA TOURIST HOME SANATHANAM WARD, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.JOSEPH SRI.K.K.MOIDEEN SRI.V.MAHENDRANATH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. K.V.JOSEPH, KULAKKATTU HOUSE THATHAMPALLY, ALAPPUZHA. 2. S.SAJINA, W/O.RAHMAN, M.J.COTTAGE UMMAPARAMBU, VELLAKINAR WARD, ALAPPUZHA. 3. S.K.VIYACHANDARAN, KARTHIKA TOURIST HOME., SANATHANAM WARD, ALAPPUZHA. 4. DEVAYANI AMMA, W/O. KARTHIKEYAN KARTHIKA TOURIST HOME, ALAPPUZHA. 5. S.K.PREMACHANDRAN, S/O.KARTHIKEYAN KARTHIKA TOURIST HOME, ALAPPUZHA. 6. S.K.KRISHNAKUMAR, S/O.KARTHIKEYAN KARTHIKA TOURIST HOME, ALAPPUZHA. WPC.NO.15772/09 7. D.SARASAMMA, D/O.KARTHIKEYAN, KARTHIKA TOURIST HOME, ALAPPUZHA. 8. SWARNALATHA,D/O. KATHIKEYAN, KARTHIKA TOURIST HOME, ALAPPUZHA. 9. JYOTHISHMATHI, D/O.KATHIKEYAN KARTHIKA TOURIST HOME, ALAPPUZHA. ADV. SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD FOR R1 SRI.RAMANARAYANA PRABHU FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).No.15772 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius.C.Kuriakose, J. Heard Sri.C.A. Joseph, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.O.V.Maniprasad, learned counsel for the first respondent and Smt.Ranjini, learned counsel for the third respondent. Accepting a submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the landlord is ready and willing to hand over the room having door No.688, which is referred to in Ext.P1 affidavit filed by the tenant, to the tenant/respondent immediately, we adjourned the order of delivery to this date. Today, when the case came up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner handed over to us a memo issued by the revision petitioner himself stating that he has produced the key of building having door No. 688 before the execution court. 2. Smt.Ranjini, learned counsel for the third respondent asserted before us that room having door No.688 is in the possession of her client for 26 years now. According to her, it will not be possible WPC.No.15772/09 2 for the revision petitioner to hand over possession of that room to the first respondent or anybody else. Learned counsel for the third respondent Sri.O.V.Maniprasad submitted that believing the submission made on behalf of the revision petitioner on 10/06/2009, the first respondent waited the whole day - yesterday for receiving the key. According to him also, it will not be possible for the revision petitioner to hand over possession of room having door No. 688 to the first respondent. 3. This is a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 is visitorial in nature and will be invoked in exceptional cases. The jurisdiction under Article 227 is not to be invoked for correcting every wrong order which is passed by a Subordinate Court. The said jurisdiction is invoked only when it can be said that the order is passed without jurisdiction or that the order is per se illegal in the sense that it offends clear statutory provisions or settled propositions. It can also be invoked in cases where the order of the Subordinate Court can be branded as a perverse one in the sense that no such order will be written by anybody having WPC.No.15772/09 3 reasonable learning and training in law. It can also be invoked for preventing injustice or mis-carriage of justice. Guaging Ext.P3 on those parameters, we do not find any warrant for invocation of the visitorial jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 for correcting Ext.P3. According to us, the findings of fact entered by the learned Munsiff in Ext.P3 and by the revisional court in Ext.P4 under Section 14 of Act 2 of 1965 are correct findings founded on evidence. The writ petition will stand dismissed. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI JUDGE sv. WPC.No.15772/09 4