IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2010 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 6787 of 2010(O) ------------------------------------- [OS.NO.283/1994 OF MUNSIFF COURT,ATTINGAL] .................... PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. NALINI, D/O.KAMALAKSHI, AGED 78 YEARS, MANAKKATTUVILAKATHU VEEDU, KATINAMKULAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. MRIDULA, D/O.NALINI, AGED 58 YEARS, MANAKKATTUVILAKATHU VEEDU, KATINAMKULAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 3. REMANI, D/O.NALINI, AGED 54 YEARS, MANAKKATTUVILAKATHU VEEDU, KATINAMKULAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 4. VIJAYAN, AGED 57 YEARS, MANAKKATTUVILAKATHU VEEDU, KATINAMKULAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.J.JAYAKUMAR, MR.N.R.SURESH KUMAR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. SATHAYN, S/O.RAMAN, AGED 56 YEARS, MANAKKATTUVILAKATHU VEEDU, KATINAMKULAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. SATHEESAN, AGED 52 YEARS, MANAKKATTUVILAKATHU VEEDU, KATINAMKULAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------------------- WP(C) No.6787 of 2010-O ------------------------------------- Dated 3rd March 2010 Judgment In this Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek a direction to the Court below to issue a carbon copy of the delivery order dated 25.02.2010 in EP No.52/2009 in OS No.283/94. There is also a prayer to call for the records leading to the passing of the above said delivery order and quash all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3 notice. 2. OS No.283/1994 before the Munsiff's Court, Attingal was a suit for partition. That was decreed. The first petitioner was the first defendant in the said suit. The second and third petitioners were defendants 2 and 3 in the suit. There were two other defendants also in the suit, namely defendants 4 and 5. 3. The petitioners point out that the decree was passed as early as on 11.04.2003. But, it was put in WPC 6787/10 2 execution only in 2009. They say that the procedural formalities have not been complied with and the execution proceedings are bad in law. On the above grounds, the petitioners pray that the execution proceedings may not be proceeded with. 4. It is difficult to accept the contentions of the petitioners that they were unaware of the proceedings and that they came to know of it, only when delivery was sought to be made. Whatever that be, there is an order of delivery now passed by the Court below. 5. Certainly, the petitioners are entitled to get a copy of the order passed by the Court below ordering delivery of the property. If, as a matter of fact, they have filed any application for the same, the Court below is bound to issue the same, provided the application is in order. However, there is no justification for reason for this Court to stay the delivery of the property, especially in view of the fact that in none of the proceedings, the petitioners have participated. It is for them to seek appropriate remedy against WPC 6787/10 3 ordering delivery. This Petition is disposed of directing the Court below to issue carbon copy of the order in EP No.52/09 in OS No.283/94 to the petitioners in case they have filed a proper application for the same. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta WPC 6787/10 4