IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 29TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 2844 of 2010(O) ------------------------- OS.156/2007 of ADDL.SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA .................... PETITIONER : ------------------ RAJAN, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O. KOCHAKKAN, VALLOMPARAMBATH UZHUVATH HOUSE, LOKAMALESWARAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR. THRISSUR DIST BY ADV. MR.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENTS : ---------------------- 1. RAMANI, AGED 56 YEARS, W/O. KARTHIKEYAN, VALLOMPARAMBATH UZHUVATH HOUSE, LOKAMALESWARAM, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DIST. 2. MIDHUN NARAYANAN, S/O. NARAYANAN, LOUHAT PEOPLE ROAD, VADUTHALA DESOM, CHERANELLUR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JVT P.BHAVADASAN, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) No. 2844 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 18th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT In this petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner assails Ext.P3 order passed by the Additional Sub Court, Irinjalakuda. 2. The petitioner instituted O.S. No.156 of 2007 before the Sub Court, Irinjalakuda. The suit is for realization of money from the 1st respondent/the defendant. It is prayed that along with the suit the petitioner filed an application for attachment of the property. It is stated that interim attachment was made. Thereafter the 2nd respondent filed a claim petition under Order XXI Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure, claiming that the property attached was sold by the 1st respondent in his favour prior to the order of attachment. The petitioner contends that the alleged sale deed is a collusive one in order to defeat the petitioner. W.P.(C) No. 2844/2010 2 3. In order to prove that the sale deed is collusive one, the petitioner filed I.A. No.4710 of 2009 for issuance of a commission to verify whether the 1st respondent is still residing in the property. The court below after considering the facts and circumstances of the case found that it was not necessary to issue a commission to verify the possession of the premises by a party and accordingly the petition was dismissed. 4. The court below rightly found that issuance of commission is unnecessary. Even assuming that the sale is a collusive one, he can prove the same by adducing other evidence. Hence, I find no ground to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE mn