IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2010 / 19TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).NO. 23743 OF 2010(O) ---------------------------------------- OS.135/1997 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF;S COURT, KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------------- JESSY JOSEPH, AGED 38, D/O.JOSEPH, KOCHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, NEDUMKUNNAM KARA, NEDUMKUNNAM VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.GIRIJA.L. SMT.SAJITHA.S.DHARAN RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. P.A.ANTONY, AGED 56 YEARS, POROTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, KOOROPPADA VILLAGE, KOOROPPADA KARA. 3. JOY SKARIAH, AGED 55 YEARS, VENMBIL HOUSE, KOOROPPADA KARA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.23743 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of August, 2010. JUDGMENT Petitioner, claiming to be the owner in possession of six (6) ares (14.82 cents) in Survey No.578/1 (R.S.No.175/9) in Block No.43 of Kooroppada Village as per Ext.P1, sale deed No.1686 of 2006 dated 18.08.2006 of SRO, Pampady filed a claim petition - E.A.No.172 of 2009 in E.P.No.132 of 2000 in O.S.No.135 of 1997 of the court of learned Principal Munsiff, Kottayam. Petitioner contended that on 16.02.2009 a sale notice was affixed in her property stating that the said property is to be sold in auction on 03.04.2009. On enquiry she learnt about the decree in O.S.No.135 of 1997 against respondent No.3/defendant. She filed claim petition (E.A.No.172 of 2009) claiming that property attached before judgment is not the property sought to be sold which belonged to her. She filed E.A.No.176 of 2009 for stay of further proceedings in execution. Executing court dismissed both the applications. Ext.P4, order on E.A.No.176 of 2009 and Ext.P6, delivery report submitted by Amin are under challenge in this Writ Petition. Learned counsel states that it is by a non-speaking order that executing court has dismissed E.A.No.172 of 2009. 2. So far as order on E.A.No.172 of 2009 (claim petition) is not challenged as provided under law petitioner cannot challenge Ext.P6, delivery report. There is no challenge to the order on E.A.No.172 of 2009 in this WP(C) No.23743/2010 2 proceeding. Hence this Writ Petition cannot be entertained. Ext.P6, delivery report is a follow-up action consequent to order on E.A.No.172 of 2009. Hence that report alone cannot be challenged. In the circumstances without prejudice to the right of petitioner to challenge the order on E.A.No.172 of 2009 as provided under law, this Writ Petition is closed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks