IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2008 / 4TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 19132 of 2008(C) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19/06/2008 IN IA 622/08 IN OS.133/2006 OF SUB COURT,NEYYATTINKARA .................... PETITIONER: ------------ GEORGE, M.G.MANDIRAM, KARIMKULAM VILLAGE, KARIMKULAM DESOM. BY ADV. SRI.R.GOPAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. VIJAYAKUMAR, N.M.C. WARD NO.28, HOUSE NO.215, THIRUPURAM PAKUTHI. 2. VIDYADHARAN, KALLUTHATTIL VEEDU, THIRUPURAM PAKUTHI, THIRUPURAM DESOM, NEYYATTINKARA. 3. JOY VARGHESE, VALLACHIRAKKARAN HOUSE, THRISSUR, CHIYYARAM VILLAGE, KOORIACHIRA, THRISSUR TALUK. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------------------ W.P(C). NO. 19132 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 25th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. 133 of 2006, a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale. After evidence was closed, petitioner filed Ext.P7 petition to summon a witness to produce documents, which was dismissed under Ext.P8 order. This petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenging Ext.P8 order. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner was heard. 3. The argument of the learned counsel is that in the plaint itself petitioner specifically alleged that assignment is executed by the first respondent in favour of second respondent and second respondent executed a sale deed in favour of third respondent, which are all fraudulent WPC19132/08 2 documents, and to shield the documents they were registered at Kattakkada Sub Registry Office, and to enable its registration another property was fraudulently included in the sale deeds and to prove that the witness should have been summoned as sought for. 4. On hearing the learned counsel and going through Ext.P8 order I do not find any illegality or irregularity warranting interference in exercise of the powers of this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India. Petitioner is entitled to challenge Ext.P8 order along with the judgment, if it goes against him. Writ petition is dismissed. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE Okb/-