IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2009 / 5TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 21015 of 2009(V) -------------------------- OS.154/1994 of MUNSIFF'S COURT, SASTHAMCOTTAH .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. BEEVI KUNJU, PUTHIYAKAVIL THEKKATHIL, THEKKE MURI, SOORANAD NORTH VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. ALIMA BEEVI, KODAMBILLI VADAKKETHARAYIL, POOZHAMKULATHIL, THEVALAKKARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. HASSAN, PUTHIYAKAVIL THEKKATHIL, THEKKE MURI, SOORANAD NORTH VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 4. ABDUL RAHIMAN, PUTHIYAKAVIL THEKKATHIL, THEKKE MURI, SOORANAD NORTH VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 5. SULAIMAN, PUTHIYAKAVIL THEKKATHIL, THEKKE MURI, SOORANAD NORTH VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 6. SYNUBEEZA, PUTHIYAKAVIL THEKKATHIL, THEKKE MURI, SOORANAD NORTH VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 7. SHEEBA SABU @ SHAHUL SHEEBA, PUTHIYAKAVIL THEKKATHIL, THEKKE MURI, SOORANAD NORTH VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.B.MOHANLAL Kss .2/- ....2..... WPC.NO.21015/2009 V RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. FATHIMA BEEVI, SUNITHA MANZIL, MUSLIM STREET, KOTTARAKKARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. ISHA UMMAL, PUTHIYAKAVIL THEKKATHIL, THEKKE MURI, SOORANAD NORTH VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. (DIED) 3. H.SEYNULABDEEN, PUTHIYAKAVIL THEKKATHIL, THEKKE MURI, SOORANAD NORTH VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, SOORANAD SOUTH VILLAGE, KUNNATHOOR TALUK, KOLLAM. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, KUNNATHOOR TALUK, SASTHAMCOTTAH, KOLLAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.21015 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 27th July, 2009 JUDGMENT The Writ Petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: 1. To direct the Munsiff Court, Sasthamcottah to dispose of Exts.P4 and P5 interlocutory Applications Nos.516/2009 and 517/2009 in O.S.No.154/1994 within a stipulated time as directed by this Hon'ble Court and till then the proceedings to effect mutation of the property covered in Exts.P1 to P3 by the respondents 4 and 5 may be kept in abeyance. 2. To declare that the mutation of the property covered in Exts.P1 to P3 in favour of the 1st respondent will be subject to the outcome of orders passed by the Munsiff Court, Sasthamcottah in Exts.P4 and P5 Interlocutory Applications Nos.516/09 and 517/09 in O.S.No.154/1994. 3. To grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. Petitioners are defendants 2 to 6 and 9 in O.S.No.154/94 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Sasthamcottah. The suit was instituted by the first respondent for partition in which a preliminary decree was passed as early as on 5.9.1994 and final decree on 23.9.2008. The W.P.C.No.21015/09 - 2 - petitioners, the defendants had no notice of the proceedings and as against them the decrees had been passed as ex parte is their case. Pursuant to the decrees, the petitioners have moved applications before the trial court for setting aside the ex parte decree with petition to condone the delay and meanwhile, the decree holder plaintiff is taking steps for effecting change of mutation in the Transfer of Registry is the grievance canvassed for filing the Writ Petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Having regard to the submissions made and the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondents is necessary, and hence it is dispensed with. If at all, the petitioners have sufficient reason for nonappearance before the court when the preliminary decree and final decree were passed in the suit, that can be determined only after the enquiry in the applications moved by them for setting aside the ex parte decrees. The applications moved by them for setting aside the preliminary decree, it is noticed, have been filed with a petition to condone the delay of 5600 days, i.e., over a period of nearly 15 years. For the sole reason that they have moved such W.P.C.No.21015/09 - 3 - petitions, this court will not be justified in passing any order interdicting the first respondent decree holder from taking steps for effecting the names in the Transfer of Registry in tune with the decree passed by the civil court. In case the applications moved by the petitioners for condoning the delay and for setting aside the ex parte decree are allowed, it is open to them to take appropriate proceedings with respect to the changes in the transfer register, if any, made by the plaintiff on the basis of the ex parte decree. Subject to the observations made above, the Writ Petition is dismissed. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE