IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 29TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 OP(C).No. 897 of 2010(O) ------------------------ ( IA 1654/2010 IN IA 1654/10 IN OS.1966/2007 of II ADDL.MUNSICC COURT,THRISSUR) .................... PETITIONER ------------------------------ SREEDHARAN, S/O.AYYAPPANKUTTY, THAIVALAPPIL HOUSE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.DILEEP KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. GOPALAKRISHNAN T.A., S/O.THAIVALAPPIL AYYAPPAKUTTY, CHETTUPUZHA, P.O.PULLAZHI, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN 680012. 2. AJAYAN T.A., S/O.THAIVALAPPIL AYYAPPAKUTTY, DO. DO. 3. MRS.OMANA, W/O.V.B.POURAN, CHAKKARAMELIL APARTMENT, FLAT NO.5, CHEMBUKKAVU, THRISSUR DISTRICT PIN 680001. 4. MRS.T.A.KUMARI, W/O.CHEMBIPARAMBIL ASOKAN, P.O.NATTIKA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 5. MRS.T.A.SUMATHI, W/O.M.N.SUDHAKARAN, MUTHIRAKKALAYIL HOUSE, S.N.PARK, P.O.ARANATTUKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680618. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P(C).No.897 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 29th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT Plaintiff in O.S.No.1966 of 2007 of the court of learned Additional Munsiff-II, Thrissur and respondent in A.S.No.94 of 2010 of the court of learned Additional District Judge-I, Thrissur is the petitioner before me. He has obtained a preliminary decree for partition which respondent Nos.1 and 2 have challenged in A.S.No.94 of 2010. They also filed Ext.P2, application for stay. On that application learned Additional District Judge passed Ext.P3, interim order of stay until further orders. Grievance of petitioner is that though Ext.P2, application is only for stay against passing of the final decree and hence Ext.P3, order has to be understood as only against passing of final decree, the trial court is not even inclined to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for effecting division of property as prayed for in Ext.P4, application and instead is adjourning the application. Petitioner seeks a direction or clarification from this court in the matter. 2. If petitioner has a contention that since Ext.P2, application is only for stay of passing final decree and hence Ext.P3, order granting stay could only be in respect of passing of O.P(C).No.897 of 2010 : 2 : the final decree it is open to the petitioner to impress the trial court regarding that. If at all any clarification is required, necessarily petitioner has to approach the court of learned Additional District Judge, Thrissur in that regard. It is not proper or justifiable for this court to issue direction or clarification as prayed for. Hence without prejudice to other rights if any of petitioner in the matter, this petition is closed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-