IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2010 / 7TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 2507 of 2010(O) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN EA 1903/09 IN EP 4/06 IN OS.224/1994 of PRL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER:- --------------- SASI, AGED 50,S/O.VELAYUDHAN, KOZHIPARAMBIL, KECHERI DESOM, ERANALLUR VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK. BY ADV. MR. DINESH R.SHENOY MR. G.HARIKRISHNAN (TRIPUNITHURA) RESPONDENT:- --------------- VENUGOPALAN, S/O. KUNNATHULLY GOPALAN, PERUMANNU DESOM, ERANALLUR VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). No. 2507 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of January, 2010. JUDGMENT The writ petitioner who is a stranger to Ext.P10 decree, claims to be aggrieved by the order passed on Ext.P1 application (E.A. No. 1795 of 2009) on the file of the Sub Court, Thrissur and also by the failure to consider on merits and dispose of Ext.P9 application (E.A. No. 1903 of 2009) for re-delivery. 2. Adv. Shri. N. Subramanian taking notice on behalf of the respondent submitted that the order passed on Ext.P1 claim petition does not call for any interference and that Ext.P9 application for re-delivery will be disposed of in accordance with law. 3. I am presently not on the question whether the order passed on Ext.P1 application is unsustainable or not. Admittedly, the petitioner is a stranger to the decree and the property has been delivered over on 28.11.2009. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is disabled from challenging the order passed on Ext.P1 application since a certified copy of the said W.P.(C) No. 2507 of 2010 : 2 : order has not been issued to him despite his application made in that behalf. In the fitness of things, I am inclined to give a direction to the court below to issue certified copy of the order passed on Ext.P1 application and also to consider and dispose of Ext.P9 application for re-delivery expeditiously after giving both sides an opportunity of being heard. 4. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the court below to issue certified copy of the order passed on E.A. 1795 of 2009 expeditiously in case an application for certified copy has already been filed. Ext.P9 application for re- delivery shall also be disposed of expeditiously after giving both sides an opportunity of being heard. It is up to that court to consider whether any interim orders have to be passed with regard to the property covered by Ext.P9 application for re- delivery. Dated this the 27th day of January, 2010. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv W.P.(C) No. 2507 of 2010 : 3 :