IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 20TH MAY 2010 / 30TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 15418 of 2010(R) -------------------------- OP.131/2004 of FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: --------------- SURENDRAN C.K, AGED 42 YEARS S/O.LATE KRISHNAN, CHAVARATHIPARAMBU, NETTOOR, MARADU PO. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.GEORGE(PUTHIYIDAM) RESPONDENT: --------------- BINDU K.P, AGED 35 YEARS, D/O.PAVITHRAN, KELOTH HOUSE PALLURUTHY PO,KONAKM, KOCHI -6. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.15418 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The petitioner is the judgment debtor. His wife, the respondent herein, is the decree holder. The decree has, admittedly, become final. Payment has not been made in full. It is submitted that part payment has already made. The property is under attachment. The court is proceeding to recover the amount by sale of that property. At this juncture, the petitioner has rushed to this Court. 2.What is his grievance? According to the petitioner, the propriety sought to be proceeded against does not belong to him exclusively. Did he raise that plea before the court below? Did he substantiate that plea? Did he inform the court that he has only fractional rights and only the said fractional rights can be proceeded against? Did any one of the other co-owners raise any objections against the proposed sale? Satisfactory answers are not forthcoming for these queries. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he had raised a plea before the court W.P.(C)No.15418/10 -2- below that he is not the absolute owner of the property. He may raise that plea and substantiate the same and inform the court below of what right he has over the property. The attempt obviously, is to secure an interim order and delay the proceedings in execution. We have no reason to assume that the court below will proceed to sell the entire property, if the petitioner actually has only a fractional interest. Those contentions can be raised and substantiated before the court below. We find absolutely no justification to invoke our extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 227 at this juncture. 3. This Writ Petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. Needless to say, the dismissal of this Writ Petition will not fetter the right of the petitioner or the other co-owners, if any, to raise appropriate contentions before the Family Court in execution. R. BASANT, JUDGE. M.C. HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn