IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 9121 of 2010(O)
1. SULOCHANA, D/O. LATE SARADA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. RAGHAVENDRN, S/O. LATE T.V.RAMACHANDRA
... Respondent
2. K.R.VENKITARAMANAN, AGED 58 YEARS,
3. K.SANTHA, D/O. LATE SARADA,
4. RATNAMMA, D/O. LATE SARADA, HARINIVAS,
5. K.RADHA, D/O. LATE SARADA,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.MADHU
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN
Dated :18/03/2010
O R D E R
P. BHAVADASAN, J.
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
W.P.(C) No.9121 of 2010
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
Dated this the 18th day of March, 2010
JUDGMENT
This is a petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India seeking a direction to the Sub Court,
Ernakulam to keep in abeyance the trial of O.S. No.585 of
2007 for a period of ten days and also, in the meantime, to
issue a carbon copy of the order dated 12-3-2010 in I.A.
No.2281 of 2010.
2. Petitioner is the addl. 3rd defendant in O.S. No.585
of 2007 on the file of the Sub Court, Ernakulam. A copy of
the plaint is produced as Ext.P1. The suit was for partition
of the plaint schedule property. The petitioner and others
were arrayed as defendants, consequent on the death of 1st
defendant. The petitioner filed an additional written
statement on 19-11-2009, a copy of which is produced as
Ext.P2. Contention of the petitioner was that the property
involved in the suit was gifted by her grand-father late
Ramachandra Rao in favour of the 1st defendant. Later, the
1st defendant executed a Will in her favour.
W.P.(C) No. 9121/10 2
3. The suit was listed for trial on 17-3-2010. The
petitioner moved I.A. No.2281 of 2010 seeking to have the
suit removed from the list. She wanted time to produce the
Will, on which she relies. It was stated that original of the
Will was produced in another suit, O.S. No. 394 of 2006 on
the file of the Munsiff’s Court, Ernakulam. That suit was
disposed of and the matter was pending in appeal as A.S.
No.370 of 2008 before the District Court, Ernakulam and
entire records have been forwarded to the District Court,
Ernakulam. Though she had applied for a certified copy of
the Will, it is not made available to her. Therefore, she was
unable to produce the same to the present suit. Under these
circumstances, the prayer was made. The court below
rejected the prayer.
4. The petitioner says that she has applied for a
certified copy of the Will, but has not received the same. In
the meanwhile, the suit is listed and is going to be tried. If
the suit is tried, without enabling the petitioner to produce
the Will, she will put to irreparable loss and hardship.
W.P.(C) No. 9121/10 3
5. In the light of the order that is sought to be passed,
notice to the respondents is not necessary.
6. Petitioner requires for a direction to issue a carbon
copy of the order dated 12-3-2010 in I.A. No.2281 of 2010
for which she had already applied. Another prayer is that till
that copy is issued, trial of the suit may be kept in
abeyance.
7. Considering the facts of the case, the request made
is quite reasonable.
8. In the result, there will be a direction to the Sub
Court, Ernakulam to issue a carbon copy of the order dated
12-3-2010 in I.A. No.2281 of 2010 forthwith, at any rate
within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment. It is also directed that the trial of the suit shall be
kept in abeyance for a period of two weeks from the date of
receipt of this judgment.
P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE.
mn.