IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 23RD NOVEMBER 2009 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 33615 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.229/2008 of PRL.M.C.,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. AJITHA D.V., AGED 42, D/O. VELAYUDHAN, R/AT DEVASWAM PARAMBIL HOUSE EDAPPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE, ELAMAKKARA P.O. 2. RAJANI D.V., AGED 40, D/O. VELAYUDHAN, R/AT KAYAKKUNNU, HOUSE VATTAKKAYAM P.O., ULIYIL, PIN 670 702. 3. APPUKUTTAN D.V., AGED 48, S/O VELAYUDHAN, R/AT DEVASWOM PARAMBIL HOUSE, EDAPPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE, ELAMAKKARA P.O. BY ADV. MS.T.S.MAYA (THIYADIL) MS.PRINCY XAVIER RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. ASHA , AGED 46. W/O. CHANDRASEKHARAN, R/AT DEVASWOM PARAMBIL HOUSE, ELAMAKKARA P.O., KANAYANNOOR, TALUK EDAPPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE. 2. D.C. DEEPU, AGED 28, S/O. CHANDRASEKHARA N, R/AT DEVASWOM PARAMBIL ELAMAKKARA P.O., KANAYANNOOR TALUK, EDAPPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE. 3. D.C. DEEPESG,S/O. CHANDRASEKHARAN, R/AT DEVASWOM PARAMBIL HOUSE, ELAMAKKARA P.O., KANAYANNOOR TALUK, EDAPPALY SOUTH VILLAGE. 4. P.H. NOUSHAD, AGED 44, S/O. SHAHUL HAMEED, CHETTIPARAMBU, FREEDOM ROAD, KALOOR DESOM, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK. 5. V.M. RAZIA, AGED 38, W/O. NOUSHAD, CHETTIPARAMBU, FREEDOM ROAD, KALOOR DESOM,ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.33615 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.229 of 2008 on the File of the Principal Munsiff Court, Ernakulam. Suit is one for partition. After the suit came up in the list for trial petitioners/plaintiffs moved an application to serve some interrogatories on the defendants. That application was objected to by the defendants, and the learned Munsiff dismissed that application vide Ext.P9 order since time to deliver interrogatories was over as the case had already been listed for trial. Another application was also moved by the plaintiffs to remove the case from the list. That application was also dismissed vide Ext.P10 order. Ext.P9 and P10 orders are challenged in this 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. Having regard to the submissions made and the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondents is necessary, and it is dispensed with. 3. Interrogatories were sought to be served on respondents 1 to 3 canvassing a case that they have to disclose the name and W.P.(C).No.33615 of 2009 - O 2 address of the persons who are alleged to be the legal heirs of deceased one Sulochana, who is stated to be none other than the eldest sister of the plaintiffs. Ext.P4 is that application and Ext.P5 is the objections filed by the contesting defendants 1 and 2. The court below without hearing the plaintiffs dismissed that application is the grievance espoused before me. I am not impressed by the submission made. Even if the plaintiffs are unaware of the legal heirs of their eldest sister, Sulochana, their interrogatories against respondents 1 to 3 should have been filed at the appropriate stage. Evidently, the application appears to have been filed only to delay the trial of the suit. I do not find any impropriety or illegality in the order passed by the learned Munsiff declining the request made by the plaintiffs. Writ petition lacks merit, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-