High Court Kerala High Court

Rahmath P.K. vs Amina P.K. on 14 September, 2007

Kerala High Court
Rahmath P.K. vs Amina P.K. on 14 September, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 27407 of 2007(K)


1. RAHMATH P.K., W/O. ABDUL KAREEM,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. V. KUNHEEBI, W/O. POCKER,
3. V. RASIYA, W/O. MUHAMMED KHASIM,
4. FATHIMA P.K., W/O.ABDURAHIMAN,
5. NOUFIRA P.K., W/O. ABDUL NAZEER,

                        Vs



1. AMINA P.K., W/O. KUNHIBAVA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. V. MUHAMMED IQBAL, S/O.V.POCKER,

3. HAJIRA P.K., W/O.D.V.MUHAMMED RAFI,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.B.KRISHNAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

 Dated :14/09/2007

 O R D E R


                             M.N.Krishnan, J.

               ========================

                      W.P(C).No.27407 of 2007

               ========================


         Dated this the  14th  day of September, 2007.


                                 JUDGMENT

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction to the

Subordinate Judge, Kozhikode to dispose of the final decree

proceedings, that is, I.A.No.1844 of 2006 in O.S.No.333 of 2003.

A preliminary decree for partition has been passed and I am

informed that a petition is filed by one of the sharers for

appointment of a receiver, who is having 7 out of 64 shares. The

court below had appointed a Commissioner, but directed the

Commissioner to inspect the property only on receipt of further

orders from the court. The said order was passed on 22.3.2007.

2. The appointment of a receiver and passing of final decree

are independent proceedings and what is to be done in a final

decree is to appoint a Commissioner to inspect the property and

divide the property by metes and bounds taking into convenience

of the parties, get a report and pass a final decree after hearing

WP(C) 27407/07 -: 2 :-

all the parties. So far as the application for appointment of

receiver is concerned, it is done when it is just convenient under

Order 40 of Code of Civil Procedure and when there is scramble

for possession. The preliminary decree would have provided for

mesne profits from the person, who is in possession of the

property and it has also to be taken into consideration while

appointing a receiver during the pendency of the proceedings.

3. Whatever it may be, the court cannot unnecessarily

postpone the inspection of the property by the Commissioner and

therefore I direct the learned Subordinate Judge, Kozhikode to

proceed further in I.A.No.1844 of 2006 by issuing necessary

orders and try to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as

possible.

Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

M.N.Krishnan,

Judge.

ess 15/9