IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 1439 of 2010(O)
1. CHIRUTHA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. NAMBOLANTAVIDA NARAYANAN
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.DEVIDAS.U.K
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :15/01/2010
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
-----------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.1439 of 2010 - O
---------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of January, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
“i) To call for the record leading to Exhibit
P4 order and set aside the same.
ii) To stay all proceedings pursuant to
Exhibit P4 order pending final disposal of the above
writ petition.”
2. Petitioner is a third party to a suit in which the court
has passed an order directing police assistance to the advocate
commissioner to facilitate the measuring out of the suit property.
The commissioner has filed an interim report before the court
stating that on his second visit a fencing was seen made in the
property which was not in existence earlier causing obstruction to
the measuring out of the property. In the light of the interim
report, plaintiff applied for providing police assistance to the
commissioner and also for removing of the fence to facilitate the
execution of the commission order by the advocate
commissioner. The court after hearing both sides passed an
W.P.(C).No.1439 of 2010 – O
2
order directing for assistance by the police to the commissioner
for executing the commission order, and, also, if necessary, by
removing the fence to the extent required for executing the
commission order. A typed copy of that order has been produced
as Ext.P4. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P4 order is
challenged by the petitioner invoking the supervisory jurisdiction
vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India.
3. I heard the counsel for the petitioner.
4. Petitioner submits that though she is not a party to the
proceedings she is injuriously affected by P4 order passed by the
court below. It is seen that the suit is instituted as early in 2001
and the advocate commissioner appointed by the commissioner
had conducted local inspection previously as well. At that point
of time as per the statement made in P4 order of the court there
was no fence at all. The fence came into existence according to
the commissioner at a later point of time. In that circumstance
to facilitate the execution of commission order, it seems, the
court has passed Ext.P4 order. If the petitioner has any
W.P.(C).No.1439 of 2010 – O
3
grievance against Ext.P4 order, she can approach the court below
and seek leave of the court for being heard in the matter and
needless to point out if grievance espoused by the petitioner has
any merit the court has to pass appropriate orders thereof in
accordance with law. Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to
challenge Ext.P4 order.
Writ petition lacks merit, and it is dismissed. Handover a
copy of the judgment to the counsel for the petitioner.
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,
JUDGE.
bkn/-