IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2009 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 30997 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.902/2007 of I ADDL.SUB COURT, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- RADHA, W/O.VELLALATH SUNILKUMAR, PARAKKAD VILLAGE, DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.V.BINOY RAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SUBHADRA, D/O.KARUTHEDATHIL SREEDEVI MANDAL, PERINGOTTUKARA DESOM, THANYAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 2. RAJAN, S/O.KARUTHEDATHIL SAROJINI MANDAL, PERINGOTTUKARA DESOM, THANYAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.30997 OF 2009 (O) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking mainly the following reliefs: i. to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order directing the court below to pass appropriate orders after considering Exts.P7 and P8. ii. to issue appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the court below from considering the case on merits without considering Ext.P8. 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.902 of 2007 on the file of the Sub Court-1, Thrissur. Suit is one for specific performance based on an agreement of sale, and the respondents are the defendants. The 1st respondent, one among the defendants, has filed a rent control petition against WPC.30997/09 2 the petitioner contending that he is only a tenant of the building, seeking his eviction. The defendants have also disputed the agreement of sale on which the suit claim was raised by the petitioner. Petitioner had moved two applications before the court below for sending over the agreement of sale and also the rent deed for scientific examination through a forensic expert. She has disputed the rent deed contending that it is a forged and fabricated agreement, is the submission of the counsel seeking for an issue of a writ/order directing the court below to allow her applications and send over the documents to the forensic expert. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondents is necessary, and, hence, it is dispensed with. It is seen the applications moved for sending over the documents to a forensic expert were filed by the petitioner on 15th October, 2009, and, according to the counsel, at that WPC.30997/09 3 stage, the suit was posted for steps only, and, thereafter, it has been included in the list for trial. It is also submitted that the case stands posted today in the special list for trial. When that be the case, I find that the visitorial jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked for issue of any writ or order to the court below to consider and dispose of Exts.P7 and P8 applications. Petitioner should have invited the attention of the court below for orders on the petitions earlier, and at this belated stage, she is not entitled to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for the reliefs canvassed in the writ petition. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp