IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2009 / 13TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 10601 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.1093/1999 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT, CHERTHALA .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ V.N.SUKUMARI, W/O. RAVEENDRAN, PATHAMABGALATH, MARUTHORVATTOM P.O., KOKKOTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, CHERTHALA. BY ADVS. MR.JOHN JUDE ISSAC, MR.R.SABU. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. ANTHOCHAN S/O. CHERIYAN, PADINJARE ARUKUZHIL, THEVARVATTOM MURI, THYCATTUSSERY VILLAGE. 2. PONNEMMA, W/O. CHIDAMBARAN, VALEVANCHIRAVEETTIL, PALLIPPURAM MURI, -DO- VILLAGE. 3. BALAKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT AYODHYA, PALLIPPURAM MURI, -DO- VILLAGE. 4. SUDHAKARAN,VELAVANCHIRA VEETTIL, -DO- MURI. 5. MADHU, OF -DO- -DO- BY ADV. MR.J.OM PRAKASH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J U D G M E N T No representation for the petitioner today also. Petition is dismissed for non prosecution. 04/08/2009 Sd/-S.S.Satheesachandran,Judge /True Copy/ Kss P.A.to Judge S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.10601 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “To call for the records leading up to Ext.P4 and quash the same by writ or certiorari.” 2. Petitioner has filed a petition in the execution proceedings commenced by the decree holder in O.S.No.1093 of 1999 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Cherthala, contending that she too has got some right over the decree schedule property. It is seen that the decree passed in the suit was one for fixation of boundary and permanent prohibitory injunction. The plaintiff in collusion with the defendants in the suit obtained the decree, was the case canvassed by the petitioner contending that she too has got some right over the property and the decree cannot be proceeded without adjudicating her claim over the property. No material whatsoever was placed by the petitioner/plaintiff to substantiate her claim over the property. The court below dismissed her claim petition vide Ext.P4 order. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the writ petition W.P.(C).No.10601 of 2009 - O 2 invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. No decree had been passed against the petitioner and she was not a party to the suit. Needless to point out she is not bound by the decree passed in the suit in which only a perpetual prohibitory injunction and fixation of the plaint property was granted and that alone by the court. Evidently, the petitioner wanted to obstruct the execution of fixation of the boundary granted under the decree, that too without producing any document substantiating her claim over the property. The court below found that in the nature of the claim set forth without any document produced to show petitioner's right over the decree schedule property no further enquiry on the claim petition is warranted and, accordingly, the petition was dismissed vide Ext.P4 order. Perusing the exhibits produced with the writ petition and the submissions made by the counsel, I find this is not a fit case where the visitorial jurisdiction of this Court is called for. No infirmity leave alone any jurisdictional error is shown in Ext.P4 order passed by the court below. Since there W.P.(C).No.10601 of 2009 - O 3 was no adjudication of the claim raised by the petitioner by Ext.P4 order, it is open to the petitioner to canvass her right if any in appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum as provided by law. Writ petition is disposed of as indicated above. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-