IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 5TH MARCH 2009 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 7136 of 2009(O) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN EP. 4/2009 IN OS.226/2005 of MUNSIFF COURT, KALPETTA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.P.MOHAMMED ALI, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.LATE BEERAN KUTTY, PURATHODAN PARAMBIL, ESTATE LANE, PODAR PLANTATIONS, ODATHODU DIVISION, CHUNDALE POST, KOTTAPPADY AMSOM DESOM, VYTHIRI TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.A.C.DEVY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. PURATHODAN PARAMBIL KADEEJA, W/O.BEERAN, VELLANCHERY HOUSE, KUNNAMBETTA POST, KOTTAPPADY AMSOM DESOM, VYTHIRI TALUK. 2. PURATHODAN PARAMBIL AYSHA BEEVI, W/O.MUHAMMED, CHOOLAYCHALIL HOUSE, CHERUVAYOOR AMSOM, ERANAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DIST. 3. UMMAYYA, W/O.LATE BEERANKUTTY, PURATHODAN PARAMBIL, ODATHODU, CHUNDALA POST, KOTTAPPADY AMSOM DESOM, VYTHIRI TALUK. 4. P.P.ABDUL RAZAK, S/O.LATE BEERANKUTTY, PURATHODAN PARAMBIL,ODATHODU, CHUNDALA POST, KOTTAPPADY AMSOM DESOM, VYTHIRI TALUK. 5. HUSSAIN, S/O.LATE BEERANKUTTY, PURATHODAN PARAMBIL, MUTTIL AMSOM DESOM, VYTHIRI TALUK. (NOW RESIDING AT REHMANIA HOTEL CHUNDALE). 6. ABDUL AZEEZ, S/O.LATE BEERNKUTTY, PURATHODAN PARAMBIL, ODATHODU, CHUNDALA POST, KOTTAPPADY AMSOM DESOM, VYTHIRI TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.7136 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the third defendant in O.S.No.226 of 2005 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Kalpetta. The suit is for partition. A preliminary decree was passed on 31.7.2006 on a compromise entered into by the parties before the Lok Adalath. It is submitted that the petitioner is not a signatory to the compromise. However, the court below passed a preliminary decree on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties and the shares were declared. 2. An application for passing the final decree was filed. The petitioner was served with notice. A final decree was passed. The persons who are allotted with properties as per the final decree filed Execution Petition and applied for delivery. The Writ Petition is filed for a direction to the executing court not to evict the petitioner and his family from the residential house in execution of the final decree. 3. The petitioner was a party to the suit. If he was WPC No.7136 /2009 2 aggrieved by the preliminary decree, he could have challenged the same in appeal. He did not do so. In the final decree proceedings, he was served with notice. He did not raise any of these contentions in the final decree proceedings and a final decree was accordingly passed. At the stage of execution, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to raise the contentions as raised now in the Writ Petition. On a query, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the property was delivered on 4.3.2009. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not think that the Writ Petition can be entertained. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl WPC No.7136 /2009 3