IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2010 / 25TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 1439 of 2010(O) ------------------------- OS.119/2001 of MUNSIFF-MAGISTRATE COURT, PAYYOLI .................... PETITIONER(THIRD PARTY): ------------------------------ CHIRUTHA, D/O. KANNAN, KARUCNACHERY AMSOM, MUTHUVANA DESOM, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.DEVIDAS.U.K RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS AND 1ST DEFENDANT: -------------------------------------------------------- 1. NAMBOLANTAVIDA NARAYANAN, S/O.KANARAN, THRIKODE AMSOM, CHALIL DESOM, KOYILANDI TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. CHALIL MEETHAL KUNHIRAMAN, KARUVANCHERI AMSOM, MUTHUVANA DESOM, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.1439 of 2010 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T Writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: “i) To call for the record leading to Exhibit P4 order and set aside the same. ii) To stay all proceedings pursuant to Exhibit P4 order pending final disposal of the above writ petition.” 2. Petitioner is a third party to a suit in which the court has passed an order directing police assistance to the advocate commissioner to facilitate the measuring out of the suit property. The commissioner has filed an interim report before the court stating that on his second visit a fencing was seen made in the property which was not in existence earlier causing obstruction to the measuring out of the property. In the light of the interim report, plaintiff applied for providing police assistance to the commissioner and also for removing of the fence to facilitate the execution of the commission order by the advocate commissioner. The court after hearing both sides passed an W.P.(C).No.1439 of 2010 - O 2 order directing for assistance by the police to the commissioner for executing the commission order, and, also, if necessary, by removing the fence to the extent required for executing the commission order. A typed copy of that order has been produced as Ext.P4. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P4 order is challenged by the petitioner invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. 4. Petitioner submits that though she is not a party to the proceedings she is injuriously affected by P4 order passed by the court below. It is seen that the suit is instituted as early in 2001 and the advocate commissioner appointed by the commissioner had conducted local inspection previously as well. At that point of time as per the statement made in P4 order of the court there was no fence at all. The fence came into existence according to the commissioner at a later point of time. In that circumstance to facilitate the execution of commission order, it seems, the court has passed Ext.P4 order. If the petitioner has any W.P.(C).No.1439 of 2010 - O 3 grievance against Ext.P4 order, she can approach the court below and seek leave of the court for being heard in the matter and needless to point out if grievance espoused by the petitioner has any merit the court has to pass appropriate orders thereof in accordance with law. Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to challenge Ext.P4 order. Writ petition lacks merit, and it is dismissed. Handover a copy of the judgment to the counsel for the petitioner. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-