IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH APRIL 2009 / 25TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 12368 of 2009(O) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- R.M.RAKESH, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O. P.K.RAJENDRAN, VALAYANAD VILLAGE, KOMMERI DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. VAZHAYIL MUHAMMED, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. BAVA, VALAYANAD VILLAGE, KOMMERI DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 2. K.M.ABDUL GAFOOR, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O. ASSAN KOYA, POKKALATH PARAMB, VALAYANAD AMSOM, KOMMERI DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 3. VADIYIL SAFIYA, AGED 38 YEARS, D/O. HASSAN KOYA, VALAYANAD AMSOM, KOMMERI DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P(C) No.12368 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 15th day of April, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner filed O.S. No.64 of 2008 in the first Additional Sub Court, Kozhikode for specific performance of an agreement for sale dated 11.3.2007. Respondent No.3 got himself impleaded as per order dated 1.11.2008 on I.A. No.2909 of 2008. Petitioner had filed I.A. No.440 of 2008 for injunction against transfer of the property pending suit. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the petition was posted for hearing on several dates it was not taken up and ultimately it now stands posted to 3.6.2009 and in the meantime respondents are attempting to alienate and encumber the suit property. Petitioner therefore prayed for a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the first Additional Sub Court, Kozhikode to dispose of I.A. No.440 of 2008 and direct respondents to maintain status quo in the meantime. Since the court of learned Sub Judge is closed due to mid summer vacation the application cannot be considered by that court during the period of vacation. But the District Court is functioning as the Vacation Court with competence to take up cases pending in the W.P(C) No.12368 of 2009 -: 2 :- Sub Court and pass appropriate orders therein as circumstances warranted. The proper course open to the petitioner is to file appropriate application before the Vacation Court under the provisions of the Civil Courts Act with notice to the respondent and seek appropriate relief. Since there is an equally efficacious remedy available to the petitioner in that way I am not inclined to entertain this Writ Petition. Accordingly this Writ Petition is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to file appropriate application before the vacation court. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. =================== S.A. NO. OF 2001 =================== J U D G M E N T APRIL, 2009