IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2010 / 12TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 24261 of 2010(O) -------------------------- AS.158/2007 of SUB COURT,NEYYATTINKARA .................... PETITIONER: --------------- IGNATIOUS LAYOLA S/o. G C ALEXANDER K.P.IX/619 PUTUVAL PURAYIDOM PARUTHIYOOR P O KULATHOOR VILLAGE NEYYATTINKARA TALUK BY ADV. SRI.P.K.BEHANAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. JERALD S/o. G C ALEXANDER POURNAMI, CHAMBAYIL THERUVU KADAVATARAM DESOM NEYYATTINKARA TALUK- 695 121 2. GIGI S/o. JERALD POURNAMI, CHAMBAYIL T HERUVU KADAVATARAM DESOM NEYYATTINKARA TALUK- 695 121 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.C.No.24261 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 03rd day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT Plaintiff in O.S.No.860 of 2002 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Neyyattinkara is the petitioner before me. He sued the respondent for declaration of title and possession and for prohibitory injunction against interfering with his possession of the suit property. The suit was dismissed against which petitioner filed A.S.No.158 of 2007. The appeal was dismissed on 05-07-2010 which unfortunately happened to be a harthal day and hence counsel could not make an oral request for issue of carbon copy of judgment. Petitioner filed I.A.No.1209 of 2010 for carbon copy but that application was dismissed as not maintainable. Now the writ petition is for a direction to the learned Sub Judge, Neyyattinkara to issue carbon copy of judgment dated 05-07-2010 in A.S.No.158 of 2007 and in the meantime to stay operation and implementation of the judgment dated 05-07-2010 in the said appeal. Learned counsel states that in view of dismissal of the appeal respondents are trying to dispossess petitioner from the suit property. 2. Under Rule 239(2) of the Civil Rules of Practice there must be an oral request for issue of carbon copy when W.P.C.No.24261 of 2010 : 2 : judgment/order is pronounced. Admittedly, that has not be done in this case whatever be the reason thereof. Hence learned Sub Judge is correct in refusing to issue the carbon copy. Learned counsel states that petitioner has applied for certified copy of judgment and decree. If such application is preferred, every endeavour has to be made to issue certified copy of the judgment at the earliest. Considering the submission made by learned counsel I consider it appropriate to direct respondents not to forcibly dispossess petitioner from the suit property for some time. Resultantly this writ petition is disposed of in the following lines: (i) Learned Sub Judge is directed to issue certified copy of the judgment and decree in A.S.No.158 of 2007, if it has been applied for as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (ii) Respondents are directed not to forcibly dispossess petitioner from the suit property for a period of one month from this day or till the appellate court which entertains second appeal if any, passed appropriate order in that regard, whichever is earlier. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-