IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2011 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1933 OP(C).No. 1141 of 2011(O) ------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24/01/2011 IN E.P.NO.242/1994 IN LAR.NO.120/1993 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER -------------------- SMT.MARIYAMMA,D/O.KURIAN PANJIKKARAN, R/AT.KOCHUPARAMBIL VEEDU,VADAKKUMBHAGAM KARA, ANIKKATTU,CHENGALAM EAST VILLAGE,KOTTAYAM, REP. BY HER P/A.HOLDER VARKEY PANJIKKARAN, 65 YEARS,PANJIKKARAN HOUSE,KAZHAKKOOTTAM P.O., MEENAMKULAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.V.GEORGE SRI.JIMMY GEORGE (THADATHIL) RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN- 695 001 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.SAJEEV THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts P.BHAVADASAN, J. --------------------------------------------------- OP(C) No.1141 of 2011 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of March 2011 Judgment In this Original Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs : i. call for the entire records relating to the above case. ii. Issue a direction or order quashing Ext.P11 order as the same is highly wrong and illegal. iii.Issue a direction or order commanding the court below to expedite the case and matter directing the court below to work out the balance amount on the basis of Ext.P6 order dated 18.5.2010 passed by the court below and pass orders directing the respondent to deposit the balance amount at the earliest. iv.Grant such other and further reliefs which this Hon'ble Court feels just and proper to grant in the circumstances of the case, including the entire costs of the proceedings. 2. It is submitted that the petitioner had earlier approached this court by filing OP NO.414/10, praying for certain reliefs. This court, by Ext.P9 judgment dated OPC 1141/11 2 21.10.2010 directed the execution court to dispose of Exts.P6 and P7 pending before it and also to determine the amount due to the petitioner. In pursuance thereof, the court below took up Exts.P6 and P7 produced in the said OP and passed the impugned order which is produced as Ext.P11 in the present OP. The court below found that the balance statements produced by both sides cannot be accepted and the true state of affairs is not disclosed by both the statements. In the light of the said finding, the court below directed both the parties to file fresh statements. It is the said order that is challenged before this court. 3. One cannot understand as to what is the grievance of the petitioner as against the direction given by the court below as per Ext.P11 order. The learned counsel for the petitioner says that there was an earlier balance statement filed by him and that would have been sufficient. 4. The above contention cannot be accepted for the simple reason that as per Ext.P9, this court had directed Exts.P6 and P7 to be disposed of and that is what is done by the court below by passing the impugned order. The petitioner OPC 1141/11 3 can have no grievance against the order of the court below as no prejudice is caused as such to the petitioner by the passing of the impugned order. However, it is ordered that in case the balance statement is filed, the court below may make every endeavour to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible. The Original Petition is disposed of as above. P.Bhavadasan, Judge sta OPC 1141/11 4