IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2008 / 30TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 21904 of 2008(G) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 2922/07 IN OPIP.2/1989 of I ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER: --------------------- KARAMANA VISWABRAHMA SAMUDAYAM, SREE MUTHUMARIYAMMAN DEVASTHANAM REP. BY ITS SECRETARY P.VELUMURUGAN. BY ADV. SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN SRI.M.R.SASITH RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. T.V.R.FUND, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, VELAYUDHAN ACHARI, S/O.THANU ACHARI, CHAKKALA VILLAKATHU VEEDU,ANDIYIRAKKAM, KARAMANA PO., TRIVANDRUM. 2. RAJAGOPAL, CHAKKALA VILLAKATHU VEEDU, ANDIYIRAKKAM, KARAMANA PO., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE OFFICIAL RECEIVER, DISTRICT COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/07/208, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== W.P.(C) NO.21904 OF 2008 =========================== Dated this the 21st day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for a direction to Additional District Court, Thiruvananthapuram to hear and pass orders in Ext.P7 application I.A.2922/2007 de novo after hearing the petitioner. Case of the petitioner is that he had filed a claim petition which was dismissed earlier and he filed I.A.541/2008 a petition to review that order and as it was not disposed he approached this court by filing W.P.(C)18610/2008 which was disposed under Ext.P6 judgment whereunder this court directed District Court to dispose Ext.P5 review petition as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment and without impleading petitioner an order was passed on 11.7.2008 in I.A.2922/2008 permitting the receiver to execute the sale deed W.P.(C) 21904/2008 2 after receiving the balance consideration. It is argued that District Judge is to be directed to pass order in Ext.P7 application after hearing the petitioner and till then the order passed in Ext.P7 petition is to be stayed. 2. On hearing the learned counsel, I do not find any reason to grant the relief as sought for by the petitioner. If the case of the petitioner is that he is a necessary party in I.A.2922/2008 and the order was passed permitting the receiver to execute the sale deed without hearing him, remedy of the petitioner is to file an application to review that order before Additional District Court, Thiruvananthapuram. If such an application is filed, District Judge has to pass appropriate order in accordance with law without any delay. 3. Without producing even the order passed in Ext.P7 application and without seeking an order to quash that order, petitioner is not entitled to get an order of stay as sought for. W.P.(C) 21904/2008 3 Writ Petiition is disposed of as above. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006