IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2010 / 28TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 1574 of 2010(O) ------------------------- OS.524/2000 of PRL.MUNSIFF'S COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- GEETHA, W/O.LATE PREMANANDA PAI, NIKARTHIL HOUSE, PUTTUKULANGARA, KUTHIYATHODE PO, CHERTHALA. BY ADV. MR.M.K.THANKAPPAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- SHOBA, W/O.AUGUSTINE, THAMMANATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PONNURUNNI, THAMMANAM PO. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.1574 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of January 2010 ---------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Petitioner is one among the parties in suit O.S No.524 of 2000 on the file of Munsiff Court, Ernakulam. Above suit is one for partition in which after passing of the final decree, execution proceedings are in progress. In the execution proceedings, petitioner has moved an application seeking a direction from the court to carve out a pathway having a width of 10 feet along the southern side of the plaint schedule property. Ext.P1 is the copy of that application. The court below dismissed that application vide Ext.P2 order. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the final decree proceedings the advocate commissioner who conducted local inspection and measured out the properties have not given any notice to the petitioner is the grievance W.P.(C).No.1574 OF 2010 Page numbers espoused to impeach the allotment made in favour of the share holder who has now proceeded with the execution of the decree. If delivery is ordered in favour of that decree holder, petitioner in the execution petition, and in respect of the allotment made to him, and boundary is put up, then, access to the rest of the properties in favour of the other coowners would be blocked, is the submission of the counsel. Whatever be the equities available to the petitioner in the enjoyment of the property partitioned, needless to point out, it has to be canvassed and worked out in the final decree proceedings. The execution court is incompetent to grant any supplementary decree to the petitioner as regards the carving of pathway in the property alloted to another. I do not find any merit in Ext.P1 application moved by the petitioner in execution which had been negatived by the execution court. No interference with Ext.P2 order is called for. Writ petition is closed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// vdv P.A TO JUDGE