IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 6TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 15TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 27623 of 2010(C) -------------------------- RCP.3/2009 of MUNSIFF COURT, PALA .................... PETITIONER: --------------- PRABHAKARAN, ODICHUKUTHIYIL HOUSE, PAYAPPAR P.O., VALLICHIRA VILLAGE, NOW RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.30, KATTAKAYAM BUILDINGS, PALA P.O. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.HARIDAS RESPONDENT: --------------- K.S.JOSEPH, S/O.DEVASIA, KATTAKAYAM HOUSE, PALA P.O., LALAM KARA, LALAM VILLAGE - 686 575. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 27623 OF 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 6thday of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is Ext.P5 order passed by the Rent Controller, Pala. By Ext.P5, the learned Rent Controller has observed that Ext.P3 document, which was sought to be put in evidence by the petitioner, is a transaction of mortgage and that the same is compulsorily registrable and also that the same is insufficiently stamped. According to the learned Rent Control Court, the document cannot be accepted on evidence and is liable to be impounded unless deficit stamp duty and penalty is paid. Accordingly under Ext.P5, the learned Rent Control Court has directed payment of deficit stamp duty and penalty on the document within seven days. 2. Several grounds have been raised in the memorandum of writ petition impugning Ext.P5. In the present jurisdiction under Article 227 which is visitorial in nature, it is not necessary that we should examine whether Ext.P5 is a perfectly legal order. Our WPC No.27623/2010 2 examination is only whether Ext.P5 order can be treated as an order which is liable to be visited under the jurisdiction under Article 227 which is invoked only exceptionally. Having regard to the parameters for invoking the visitorial jurisdiction under Article 227, it is clear to our mind that there is no warrant for invocation of the above jurisdiction to interfere with Ext.P5. May the petitioner has a genuine grievance about Ext.P5. If the ultimate order to be passed by the Rent Control Court comes to be against the petitioner and if it becomes necessary for the petitioner to file appeal against that order, it will be open to the petitioner to raise it as a ground in the prospective RCA that Ext.P5 passed by the learned Rent Controller was illegal. With the above observation, we decline jurisdiction and dismiss the writ petition in limine. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, (JUDGE) P.S.GOPINATHAN, (JUDGE) vps WPC No.27623/2010 2 WPC No.27623/2010 2