IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2010 / 14TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 17390 of 2010(C) -------------------------- OS.1025/2004 of PRL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER: --------------- SUDHEER, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.SRI.KUMARAN, THALAPPULLY HOUSE, GURUVAYUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.D.DILEEP RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. RAVUNNI, S/O.RAVUNNY NAIR, VELUTHEDATH HOUSE, CHAKOTH LANE, PUNKUNNAM DESAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680002. 2. SARALA BHASKARAN, AGED 62 YEARS, W/O.LATE BHASKARAN, PAYYAPPATT HOUSE, PUNKUNNAM DESAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680002. 3. BASU, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.LATE BHASKARAN, PAYYAPPATT HOUSE, PUNKUNNAM DESAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680002. 4. BINSU, AGED 35 YEARS, D/O.LATE BHASKARAN, PAYYAPPATT HOUSE, PUNKUNNAM DESAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680002. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== W.P(C) No.17390 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 4th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a non-party to the suit - O.S.No.1025 of 2004 filed by respondent No.1 in the court of learned Principal Sub Judge, Thrissur against respondent Nos.2 to 4 for specific performance of Ext.P1, agreement for sale dated 12-06-1998. The suit was decided ex parte on 30-09-2005. Respondent No.1 filed I.A.No.3996 of 2006 to get the sale deed executed. Petitioner, claiming to have purchased the suit property from respondent Nos.2 to 4 on 14-01-1999, much before institution of the suit filed I.A.Nos.5105 of 2007 and 5104 of 2007 for impleadment and making a claim over the suit property on the strength of assignment deed in his favour dated 14-01-1999. Grievance of petitioner is that even without disposing of the said applications (Exts.P6 and P7 in this proceeding) the court on 21-05-2010 has ordered delivery of property to respondent No.1 to be effected on 07-06-2010. Learned counsel contends that the court could have directed delivery only after Exts.P6 and P7, applications are disposed of. It is also submission of learned counsel that W.P(C) No.17390 of 2010 -: 2 :- petitioner has filed O.S.No.3056 of 2007 in the court of learned Munsiff, Thrissur against respondent No.1 seeking injunction against trespass into the property claiming that he is in possession thereof. 2. Going by Ext.P4, petitioner has purchased the suit property on 14-01-1999 much before institution of the suit though, after Ext.P1, agreement for sale dated 12-06-1998 executed by respondent Nos.2 to 4 in favour of respondent No.1. In that situation, court below ought to have considered Exts.P6 and P7, applications before directing delivery of the property. Hence Exts.P6 and P7, applications are to be disposed of before property is delivered over to respondent No.1. Resultantly the writ petition is disposed of directing learned Sub Judge to dispose of Exts.P6 and P7, applications before property is delivered over to respondent No.1. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. Sbna/