The petitioner approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by Ext. P10 order passed by the Additional Sub Court, Kottayam.
2. Shorn off unnecessary details, the suit was one for partition and the property was alloted to the three shares. But there were disputes regarding the pathway which was carried them to this Court and this Court, in F.A.O. No. 132/2012 which is Ext.P4, though refused to interfere with the allotment, observed that proper way had to be carved out and for that purpose the matter was remanded. This Court also observed that the suit is to be disposed within six months from the date of appearance of the parties which was fixed as 02.01.2014.
3. After the matter went back to the trial court, the O.P.(C) No. 2495 of 2014 -2-
petitioner pointed out that he had already moved that court by way of a petition pointing out that the Thaluk Land Board had initiated proceedings against the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner and others and had sought surrender of certain extent of land. That was challenged before this Court and it was set aside in 2007.
4. The petitioner then pointed out that in 2010, he happened to receive a notice from the Apex Court indicating that the appeal filed by the State had been admitted which puts the issue in jeopardy. The petitioner now apprehends that if the property to be surrendered is to the taken from the share allotted to him, he will be a loser and it is only proper that the court stays its stand till the proceedings before the Apex Court is terminated.
5. The court below was unable to accept that plea.
The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that this aspect of the case was brought to the notice of this Court while considering F.A.O.No. 132/2012 also by filing a O.P.(C) No. 2495 of 2014 -3-
petition with necessary documents. But this Court did not consider that aspect.
6. Whatever that be as long as there is a direction by this Court to consider a particular aspect alone and also fixing a time for disposal of the suit unless and until the petitioner gets the matter reviewed and gets appropriate orders, it will not be possible either for the court below or for this Court to interfere with the order in the FAO.
Reserving the liberty of the petitioner to move this Court seeking review of the order in the F.A.O. or other procedures know to law, this petition is disposed of.
ds //True Copy// P.A. To Judge Sd/-
P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE