IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2010 / 25TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 1364 of 2010(O) ------------------------- E.P.NO.220/2007 IN OS.402/1995 of II ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA ................. PETITIONER: --------------- N.K.PANKAJAM, AGED 70 YEARS, W/O.LATE PARAMESWARAN,THEKKUMKANDATH VILAKATH PURAYIDAM, KANICHAMKODE,VAZHUTHOOR, NEYYATTINKARA VILLAGE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL MR.V.ANIRUDHAN NAIR RESPONDENT: --------------- P.K.AJITH KUMAR, S/O.LATE PARAMESWARAN, SREE NILAYAM, BRAHMAMCODU, PATHAMKALLU,ATHIYANNUR VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.1364 of 2010 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T Writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: “i) To direct the court below to consider and pass orders on Exhibit P4 application within a time frame to be fixed by this Honourable Court. ii) To direct the court below to keep in abeyance the delivery of the property ordered in E.A.No.170/2008 in E.P.No.220/2007 in O.S.No.402/1995 till the disposal of Exhibit P3 suit.” 2. Petitioner was one among the plaintiffs in a suit for partition in which a preliminary decree and later a final decree were passed. In execution of the decree passed in that suit, steps are now in progress for delivering the property in accordance with the shares allotted to the parties. Petitioner has executed a sale deed in favour of one of her sons and so much so, the share allotted in her favour also vested with him, was the case of that son in the execution proceedings to claim delivery of that property as well. Petitioner has filed a suit challenging the sale deed on which the petitioner in the execution petition, her W.P.(C).No.1364 of 2010 - O 2 son, decree holder, had sought for delivery under that deed against the judgment debtor, who also happens to be another son. The court below, it is stated, has ordered for delivery of the property on 18.1.2010 directing for filing a compliance report the next day. Suit filed by the petitioner impeaching the sale deed on the basis of which the petitioner in the execution petition applied for delivery of the property under the sale deed purported to have been executed by the petitioner, is pending consideration is canvassed for the reliefs aforementioned in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the 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 respondent is necessary and it is dispensed with. 4. In case the petitioner has any case that the execution proceedings taken by the respondent/decree holder setting forth a claim on the sale deed purported to have been executed by her is invalid as she has already filed a suit impeaching the sale deed W.P.(C).No.1364 of 2010 - O 3 she has to seek the reliefs canvassed in the present petition in that suit and not by invoking the visitorial jurisdiction vested with this Court. I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Reserving the right of the petitioner to canvass the reliefs urged in the writ petition in the pending suit, the writ petition is closed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-