IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 24244 of 2009(O)
1. VILASINI AMMA, D/O.MADHAVI AMMA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SRI.RAMACHANDRA MENON,
... Respondent
2. SRI.BALAKRISHNAN,
3. SMT.REMANI, D/O.BHAGEERATHI AMMA,
4. SRI.CHANDRASEKHARAN,
5. SRI.SIVARAMA MENON,
6. SRI.ARAVINDAKSHA MENON,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.GOPINATH
For Respondent : No Appearance
Dated :24/08/2009
O R D E R
S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No.24244 of 2009
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated: 24th August, 2009
JUDGMENT
The Writ Petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
1. To direct the court below to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5
(I.A.No.1553 of 2008 in I.A.No.2529 of 1999 in O.S.No.201 of 1996
on the file of the Honourable Sub Court, Palakkad) within a time limit
that may be fixed by this Honourable Court.
2. To direct that the sale of the plaint schedule property in
O.S.No.201 of 1996 among sharers proposed to be held on
24.08.2009 to be postponed.
3. To declare that the plea of the petitioner for allotment of the house
and adjoining property having not been objected to, an auction sale
of the properties is not contemplated in law.
4. To declare that Ext.P4 order to the extent it orders sale of the
properties by auction is illegal and unsustainable in law.
5. To award the costs of this proceeding to the petitioner.
6. To issue such other writs, directions or orders as this Honourable
Court may deem fit and the petitioner may pray from time to time.
2. Petitioner is the 8th defendant in O.S.No.201 of 1996 on the
file of the Principal Sub Court, Palakkad. Suit is one for partition. The
W.P.C.No.24244/09 – 2 –
petitioner with another had moved an application under Sections 2
and 3 of the Partition Act claiming an equitable relief over a building
for its allotment in their favour. That application was disposed by the
court by P4 order fixing the upset price of the property and permitting
the shareholders to participate in the auction. The case of the
petitioner is that an application for review was filed for revising that
order. While that application was pending, the court had posted the
case for conducting auction of the property. At that stage the
petitioner has approached this court seeking the reliefs
aforementioned invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this
court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
3. 6th respondent has entered appearance. I heard the counsel
for the petitioner and also the 6th respondent. From the submissions
made, it appears, after disposal of the application moved by the
petitioner seeking an equitable relief and that being disallowed by the
court directing for auction of the plaint property, the case had been
adjourned from time to time for sale and the petitioner also moved
application from personal exemption, but expressed willingness to
participate in the auction. The review petition filed by the petitioner is
pending which is canvassed for the reliefs claimed in the Writ Petition
W.P.C.No.24244/09 – 3 –
is seen filed long after the period of limitation prescribed for
entertaining such a petition. Further more, I find the order under
challenge, P4, had been passed as early as on 21.2.2008. There is no
merit in the Writ Petition and it is dismissed.
srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE