IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 25885 of 2010(O)
1. SARASWATHY, D/O.LATE KUNJAN, AGED 58,
... Petitioner
2. RADHAMAY, D/O.LATE KUNJAN, AGED 62 YEARS
3. SWARNAMMA W/O. SWARNAPPAN, AGED 74,
4. SOBHANA,D/O.SWARNAPPAN, AGED 51 YEARS,
5. GEETHA,D/O.SWARNAPPAN, AGED 49 YERAS,
6. AJITHA D/O.SWARNAPPAN, AGED 41 YEARS,
7. SNEHALATHA, W/O.LATE GOPI, AGED 65,
8. AJAYAN, S/O.LATE GOPI, AGED 46 YEARS,
9. LENA,D/O.LATE GOPI, AGED 40 YEARS,
10. M.L.BABU,S/O.LEELA AGED 37 EYARS,
11. ANILKUMAR,S/O.LEELA, AGED 35 YEARS,
12. ANILKUMAR, AGED 47 YEARS,
13. AJITHKUMAR, AGED 45,S/O.SWRNAPPAN
Vs
1. ANNAMMA MARTIN,W/O.P.C.MARTIN,AGED 76,
... Respondent
2. THOMAS MARTIN (MOHAM),S/O.ANNA MARTIN,
3. GETRUDE MARTIN, AGED MARTIN DALE,
4. AGNES MARTIN (MOLLY),AGED MARTIN DALE,
5. GLADIS JAMES (DOLLY) AGED 69,
6. ANI DIANA JOSEPH ALIAS OMANA, AGED 68,
7. MONA DORIS ALIAS GIRLY JOSEPH, AGED 67,
8. SUSHY MARTIN, D/O.P.C.MARTIN, AGED 60,
9. DR.TREESA MARTIN ALIAS LEELA, AGED 64,
10. A.G.MARTIN ALIAS RAJA, AGED 66,
11. KIM,128,PIUGON, SANIYA TININI TUM,
12. CONTAZ, AGED 18 YEARS, OF -DO- -DO-
13. DONA, AGED 12 YEARS, MINOR OF -DO-
14. GEOFFREY MARTIN,S/O.P.C.MARTIN
15. SATHEESH, ADVOCATE COMMISIONR IN
For Petitioner :SMT.K.KUSUMAM
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :18/08/2010
O R D E R
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
--------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.25885 of 2010
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of August, 2010.
JUDGMENT
O.S.No.106 of 1986 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Alappuzha is a suit
for partition filed by respondent Nos.1 to 4 against respondent Nos.5 to 14. It
involves several items of properties some at Alappuzha and the other, at
Thiruvananthapuram. According to the petitioners item Nos.9 to 17 are situated
at Thiruvananthapuram and those items belonged to them. It is also the case of
petitioners that there are various other suits concerning other items even
involving item Nos.1 to 4 and certain documents are produced to show
pendency of such suits. Learning about pendency of O.S.No.106 of 1986
petitioners filed Exts.P6 to P9, applications for review, their impleadment and
stay of further proceedings including inspection by the Advocate Commissioner
and for advancing the said applications since the case is posted on 06.09.2010.
Since there was no sitting in the court of learned Sub Judge, Alappuzha
application to advance hearing of above said applications was taken up by the
learned Additional District Judge, Alappuzha. That application was dismissed
vide Ext.P9(a) order dated 12.08.2010 observing that there is no urgency in the
matter and that Advocate Commissioner’s inspection would not cause any
prejudice to the petitioners. That order is under challenge in this Writ Petition.
There is also a prayer to keep in abeyance warrant of commission until Exts.P6
to P8, applications are disposed of by the learned Sub Judge. Learned counsel
WP(C) No.25885/2010
2
for petitioners state that as per information received, Advocate Commissioner
will inspect the property on 19.08.2010 with police assistance which will cause
embarrassment to the petitioners.
2. I have gone through the records placed before me and Ext.P9(a),
order. Issue regarding petitioners’ right over item Nos.9 to 17 is to be
considered by the learned Sub Judge. Learned Additional District Judge has
pointed out that inspection by the Advocate Commissioner will not cause
prejudice to the petitioners. I do not find reason to differ from that view.
3. So far as difficulty expressed by learned counsel on account of
police assistance provided to the Advocate Commissioner to carry out
commission warrant is concerned, if there is no obstruction there would have
been no occasion for ordering police assistance. If that be so, there is no
reason to interfere. It is open to the petitioners to seek their remedy in the court
concerned on the strength of Exts.P6 to P8, applications as provided under law.
Writ Petition is dismissed.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH,
Judge.
cks