IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2010 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 10593 of 2010(O) ------------------------------------ OS.1045/2008 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM ........................................... PETITIONER(S): -------------------- M.VIJAYAN, S/O.MADHAVAN, T.C.NO.39/1717(5), KURIYATHY, MANACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SMT.M.HEMALATHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ANILKUMAR.K, S/O.KUMARAN NAIR, RAJI BHAVAN, T.C.NO.36/1461, PERUNTHANNI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. MAYA.R.V, W/O.ANILKUMAR, RAJI BHAVAN, T.C.NO.36/1461, PERUNTHANNI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sou. P. BHAVADASAN, J --------------------------- W.P.(C).No.10593 OF 2010 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The limited prayer in this petition is for a direction to take up Ext.P10 interlocutory application I.A.2097/10 filed by the petitioner before the IInd Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram and to dispose of it on merits. 2. The petitioner instituted O.S.1045/08 before the IInd Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram, which is a suit for declaration of title, injunction and recovery of possession. Copy of the plaint is produced as Ext.P1. Along with the suit, petitioner filed interlocutory application seeking temporary injunction. After hearing both sides, Ext.P3 order was passed. The respondents challenged Ext.P3 order, but without success. It is pointed out that first respondent and brother filed a suit for partition and other reliefs. Copy of the plaint is produced as Ext.P4. Even though interlocutory application was filed seeking reliefs against the petitioner, that petition was dismissed. Attempt was made by the respondents to wrest the building by taking up recourse Domestic Violence Act. WPC.10593/10 2 3. According to the petitioners violating Ext.P3 order of injunction, the respondents started repairing and painting in the plaint schedule property. Petitioners also filed two petitions. One for violating interim order and other for issuance of a commission. Ext.P9 and P10 are the respective petitions. Petitioner pointed out that these petitions are posted to 20.7.2010. Since the report is urgently necessary in order to prove the violation, the petitioner filed an advance petition on 20.3.2010, copy of which is produced and marked as Ext.P11. After advancing the same, the court below posted it in 19.5.2010. The petitioner says that urgent orders are required to consider Ext.P10 and a direction to that effect may be issued. 4. In the light of an order that is proposed to issue, it is not necessary to issue notice to respondents. 5. The limited prayer in the petition is for a direction to the court below to dispose of Ext.P10 application for issuance of a commission. In the petition, the petitioner has highlighted the urgency for issuance of a commission. Considering the facts and WPC.10593/10 3 circumstances of the case it is felt that the prayer is just and proper. 6. There will be a direction to the IInd Additional sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram to take up I.A.2097/10 in O.S.1045/08 and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible at any rate before the commencement of summer vacation. Sent a copy of this order to the IInd Additional Sub Court,Thiruvananthapuram forthwith. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. Sou.