IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 32976 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A.3135/08 & 1390/09 IN I.A.1906/2006 IN I.A.120/91 IN OS.107/1977 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER: --------------- SAJINA, D/O.ANIFA, AGED 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT JAMEELA MANZIL, BANGLATHERUVU, KOPPAM AMSOM & DESOM, PALAKKAD TALUK & DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. PAZHANIYAPPA PILLAI, S/O.ARUNACHALAM PILLAI, 2. VELAYUDHAN, S/O.ARUNACHALAM PILLAI, 3. SIVASUBRAMANIAN, S/O.PAZHANIYAPPAN PILLAI, 4. RATHNASABHAPATHY, S/O.PAZHANIYAPPAN PILLAI, 5. BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.PAZHANIYAPPAN PILLAI, 6. GOPALAKRISHNAN, S/O.PAZHANIYAPPAN PILLAI. RESPONDENTS 1 TO 6 ARE RESIDING AT VITHUNNI, YAKKARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 7. KARUPPANNAN, S/O.MARAKATHAMMAL, MERCHANT, DEVASTHANAM, PEETAVAITHALAI.P.O, KULITHALAI TALUK, TRICHY DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU. 8. CHAMIYAPPANPILLA, S/O.MARAKATHAMMAL, 9. MEENAMBAL, D/O.MARAKATHAMMAL, WPC 32976/09 RESPONDENTS 8 AND 9 ARE RESIDING AT MALAIVEETHI, VELAYUDHANPALAYAM P.O., KARUR TALUK, TRICHY DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU. 10. AAYSUMMA, W/O.ABDUL KHADER. 11. JAFFER, S/O.ABDUL KHADER. 12. NAZAR, S/O.ABDUL KHADER. 13. ASHARAF, S/O.ABDUL KHADER. 14. AYOOB, S/O.ABDUL KHADER. 15. MAHAMOODA, D/O.ABDUL KHADER. 16. MARIA, D/O.ABDUL KHADER. 17. NABEESA, D/O.ABDUL KHADER. 18. SEENATH, D/O.ABDUL KHADER. 19. UPPAPPA @ NOUSHAD, S/O.ABDUL KHADER. 20. RAHMATH, W/O.K.A.MUHAMMED. 21. SALEEM, S/O.K.A.MUHAMMED. 22. SHAMEENA, D/O.K.A.MUHAMMED. 23. ANVAR, S/O.K.A.MUHAMMED. 24. SAKKEER, S/O.K.A.MUHAMMED. 25. SAIRABHANU, D/O.K.A.MUHAMMED. 26. SHANOJ, S/O.K.A.MUHAMMED. 27. BULKEES, W/O.K.A.SHAMSUDHEEN. 28. MUHAMMED ASHIF, S/O.K.A.SHAMSUDHEEN. 29. MUHAMMED ASHIK, S/O.K.A.SHAMSUDHEEN. 30. NAZEEMA, D/O.K.A.SHAMSUDHEEN. RESPONDENTS 10 TO 30 ARE RESIDING AT VITHUNNI, YAKKARA, PALAKKAD. 31. DEVAKI AMMAL, W/O.NAGAPPAN PILLAI. 32. VASANTHAKUMARI, D/O.NAGAPPAN PILLAI. 33. GURUVAYURAPPAN, S/O.NAGAPPAN PILLAI. WPC 32976/09 RESPONDENTS 31 TO 33 ARE RESIDING AT VITHUNNI STREET, NURANI, PALAKKAD. 34. FATHIMA, W/O.K.H.MUHAMMED. 35. PANCHALI 36. GEETHA 37. REMESH 38. SIVASANKARAN, S/O.AMMUNNI AMMA. RESPONDENTS 34 TO 38 ARE RESIDING AT VITHUNNI, YAKKARA, PALAKKAD. 39. K.H.MUHAMMED, SANGAM HOTEL, VITHUNNI, PALAKKAD. 40. SIVAKAMI AMMAL, W/O.LATE THYAGARAJAN, VITHUNNI, PALAKKAD. 41. RAJENDRAN, S/O.LATE THYAGARAJAN, VITHUNNI, PALAKKAD. 42. DHANABHAGYAM, W/O.LATE RAMAN. 43. PRABHU, S/O.LATE RAMAN. 44. RAMESH, S/O.LATE RAMAN. RESPONDENTS 42 TO 44 ARE RESIDING AT VITHUNNI, PALAKKAD. 45. DHANALAKSHMI AMMAL, D/O.ARUNACHALAM PILLAI. 46. MURUKESAN, S/O.ARUNACHALAM PILLAI. 47. GANESAN, S/O.ARUNACHALAM PILLAI. RESPONDENTS 45 TO 47 ARE RESIDING AT VITHUNNI, PALAKKAD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.32976 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 19th November, 2009 JUDGMENT The Writ Petition is filed seeking mainly the following reliefs: 1. To call for the records leading to Exhibits P5 and quash the same by means of a writ of certiorari or such other writ in the like nature, direction or order. 2. To direct the Sub Court, Palakkad to decide I.A.No.3455/2009 in O.S.No.107/1977 before passing of final decree in the matter by means of an appropriate writ direction or order. 2. Petitioner is the 27th respondent in the final decree proceedings, which is being continued in a suit for partition, O.S.No.107 of 1977 on the file of the Sub Court, Palakkad. She had moved two applications, one for setting aside the commission report, and another for passing of a supplementary preliminary decree canvassing a case that she had purchased the rights of some of the parties who had been allotted shares under the preliminary decree passed earlier. The application moved by her for setting aside the commission report, after hearing both sides, was dismissed vide P5 order. The other application moved by her for passing the W.P.C.No.32976/09 - 2 - supplementary preliminary decree (P6) is stated to be pending. In the writ petition challenging P5 order, the petitioner seeks for direction/orders to the court below for consideration and disposal of her application for passing the supplementary preliminary decree (P6). 3. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. Perusing the materials tendered with the writ petition, more particularly, P5 order of the learned Sub Judge and P6 application for passing of a supplementary preliminary decree with reference to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find that the attempt of the petitioner in approaching this court canvassing for the reliefs as indicated above by filing this writ petition is only to prolong and protract the final decree proceedings, and thus, delay in passing of such decree in the suit. P5 order passed by the learned Sub Judge clearly spell out the application moved by the present petitioner challenging a commission report based on a local inspection of the commissioner over the plaint property a decade ago, with the report filed on 8.10.1998, is nothing, but, an attempt to delay the proceedings. Some other defendants have raised challenges to the commission report and there was more than one previous proceeding W.P.C.No.32976/09 - 3 - before this court in respect of the challenges so canvassed by them, and now the final decree proceedings in the suit are continued by the court on the basis of the directions issued by this court fixing time limit, so that there is an early completion of the proceedings. There is no merit in the case canvassed by the petitioner to challenge P5 order passed by the learned Sub Judge. So far as the application moved by the petitioner for passing of supplementary preliminary decree (P6), whatever be her claim, in the given facts of the case, no direction can be issued by this court in exercise of its visitorial jurisdiction as there is reason to hold that such application has been moved to delay the completion and passing of the final decree in the suit. Writ Petition lacks merit, and it is dismissed. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE