IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE 9TH APRIL 2010 / 19TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 12121 of 2010(O) --------------------------------------- OS.90/1996 of MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SANTHA K.NAIR,ALLATTU VEEDU, THUKALASSERI MURI,THIRUVALLA VILLAGE THIRUVALLA TALUK.(NOW RESIDING T "SURABHI",C-20,MYTHIRI NAGAR,TIRUMALA.P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.KILLIYOOR P.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- AMBUJAKSHY,THOPPIL VEEDU,PARUMALA MURI, KADAPRA VILLAGE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------------------- WP(C) No.12121 of 2010-O ------------------------------------- Dated 9th April 2010 Judgment In this Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks the following relief : “direct the Munsiff's Court, Thiruvalla to permit the petitioner to remit the amount payable by the respondent/first defendant towards stamp duty and to send the same for registration, within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court.” 2. The petitioner claims to be the second plaintiff in OS No.90/96, which is a suit for partition. The preliminary decree was passed on 23.02.2000. The final decree application was moved by the petitioner along with an application for taking out commission. A commission was taken out and the Commissioner has filed a report and plan. The grievance of the petitioner is that when the final decree was not passed even after the lapse of 8 years of filing the application, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.5439/08 seeking for a direction to WPC 12121/10 2 expedite the trial in the final decree application. The said WP(C) was allowed by Ext.P1 order dated 15.02.2008. In obedience to the direction in that Judgment, the final decree was passed by order dated 15.03.2008. The petitioner would say that she has deposited her share of the amount and the value for the stamp paper. 3. The complaint is that the respondent, even after the lapse of two years, is not paying the value of the stamp paper that is due from him. Since the respondent was in possession of the land, she is taking the usufructs from the property. Therefore, the petitioner claims to have filed a petition before the Munsiff's Court, Thiruvalla to permit her to remit the amount of the value of stamp paper of the respondent. Notice was issued to the respondent and the matter was posted to 18.02.2010, 4.3.2010 and to 10.03.2010. Copy of the said petition is produced as Ext.P4. The complaint is that the petition came up on several occasions before the Court but no orders were passed. Finally, on 30.03.2010, the respondent filed WPC 12121/10 3 objection to the petition filed by the petitioner. Copy of the said objection is produced as Ext.P5. The main objection taken is that an appeal has been preferred against the final decree. 4. The petitioner complains that the matter is being dragged by the respondent on pretext or the other with the intention to see that the petitioner does not get her share of property. She, therefore, seeks a direction to the Court below to permit her to remit the amount payable by the respondent towards stamp duty. 5. It is unnecessary for this Court to interfere in the matter. Rule 236 of the Civil Rules of Procedure is very clear on the point involved in this proceedings. The petitioner can take recourse to that provision and get appropriate orders from the Court below. Reserving the liberty of the petitioner in this regard, this Writ Petition is dismissed. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE WPC 12121/10 4 sta WPC 12121/10 5