IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 31739 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.178/2000 of SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAJAGOPAL, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.GOPALA PILLAI, RESIDING AT KULATHUNGAL HOUSE (DARSANA) THADIYOOR MURI, AYROOR VILLAGE RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.BALAGOPALAN SRI.A.RAJAGOPALAN SRI.IMTHIYAZ AHAMED SRI.K.SANEESH KUMAR SMT.KALA G.NAMBIAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE,THADIYOOR BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 2. BIJU ABRAHAM, AGED 36 YEARS S/O.ABRAHAM,RESIDING AT CHARUVIL VEEDU THADIYOOR MURI, AYROOR VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C).No.31739 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of November 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Writ petition is filed by the plaintiff in O.S No.221 of 2008 on the file of the Sub Court Pathanamthitta. Suit was filed to declare that a sale conducted in pursuance of the decree passed in another suit is vitiated by fraud and not binding on the plaintiff. In the suit, the plaintiff moved an interlocutory application for staying the delivery proceeded on the basis of the sale certificate issued in the other suit. Respondent/defendant bank in whose favour the sale certificate had been issued pursuant to sale of the property opposed the application. The learned Sub Judge dismissed the application moved by the plaintiff vide Ext.P8 order. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P8 order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. W.P.(C).No.31739 OF 2009 Page numbers 2. Respondent has entered appearance through counsel. I heard the counsel on both sides. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find no impropriety or illegality in Ext.P8 order passed by the court below. Plaintiff wanted to challenge the validity of a decree and also sale proceeded on the basis of the decree in another suit in which he was also a party, by way of a separate suit. Challenge, if any, against the sale in the previous suit in which the plaintiff was a party could be canvassed only as provided by law, which, in the given facts, of course, was not available to him by a separate suit. That being so, I find the writ petition lacks merit, and it is dismissed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv