IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2008 / 13TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 23266 of 2008(T) -------------------------- OS.259/1978 of PRL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER: ------------ 1. P.C.JOHNY, PROPRIETOR, P.C.JOSEPH AND BROS., RICE BAZAAR, THRISSUR VILLAGE. 2. ANIL, S/O.JOHNY, 37 YEARS PUTHUPALLIPARAMBIL, KATCHERI DESOM NADATHARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE MATHEW SRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. JOHNY, S/O.LATE ANTHONY CHIRIYANKANDATH, CHEMBOOKAVU, THRISSUR TALUK. 2. ADV.INNEES CHIRIYANKANDATH KACHERIPADI, CHITTOOR ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 3. ANNA, W/O.VARUNNI, PALIYEKKARA, CHIYYARAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR. 4. GRACY, W/O.AKKARAPPATTY THOMAS, WEST SOORYAGRAMAM, THRISSUR. 5. ALICE, W/O.DEVASSY JOSE, THETTAYIL EAST FORT, THRISSUR. 6. LAPPAKKARAN JACOB, CHAKKALAMAKATH IRINJALAKUDA. 7. BABU JACOB, S/O.LAPPAKKARAN JACOB CHAKKALAMAKATH, IRINJALAKUDA. 8. JOSEPH.L.J., S/O.LAPPAKKARAN JACOB, CHAKKALAMAKATH, IRINJALAKUDA. 9. MAGHI, PARAKKAL VEEDU, KALADY. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... WP(C).No. 23266 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 4th DAY OF AUGUST, 2008 JUDGMENT This petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to quash Ext.P3 and P5 orders passed by Sub Court, Thrissur. Under Ext.P3 order, learned Sub Judge dismissed I.A.4635 of 2008, an application filed by petitioner, 7th defendant to call for the records from the investigation file of Vigilance office. Under Ext.P5, trial court appointed an expert to fix the value of the property. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner was heard. The argument of the learned counsel is that as respondents are relying on a sale deed which is being investigated by the Vigilance Department, learned Sub Judge should have called for the records as sought for in I.A 4635 of 2005. Learned counsel argued that the said records are necessary to prove that a Vigilance case is pending and the document cannot be relied on. 3. On hearing the learned counsel and going through Ext.P5 order, I do not find any illegality or irregularity, warranting interference in Ext.P3 order. Investigation file in a vigilance case, in which final report is yet to be submitted, WP(C) 23266/2008 2 cannot be called for as sought for by the petitioner. 4. Under Ext.P5, learned Sub Judge has only appointed an expert Commissioner to value the structure to fix the market value of the property. As per the judgment in RFA 456 of 2006, Division Bench of this court found that though an application as provided under Section 2 of the Partition Act was not filed, as the court has directed sale of the property, petitioner is to be permitted to file an application under Section 3 of the Partition Act. Trial court was directed to dispose the application, if filed. When an application under Section 3 is maintainable, court is necessarily to fix the value of the property and then only the property could be offered for sale. It is for that purpose, Ext.P5 order was passed. I do not find any reason to interfere with Ext.P3 and P5 orders. Petitioner is entitled to challenge the orders, if the final decree is to be challenged in an appeal. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-