IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2010 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 OP(C).No. 1168 of 2010(O) ------------------------- OS.47/2008 of SUB COURT,KOCHI .................... PETITIONER (S): -------------------------- JOSE, AGED 79 YEARS, S/O.VARGHESE, MULAYAREEKAL HOUSE, NJARAKKAL P.O., ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.N.SURESH RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. DEVASSY, AGED 79 YEARS, S/O.OUSEPH, HOUSE NO. 9/150, VALOORAN HOUSE, NJARAKKAL P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 505. 2. AMMINI, AGED 70 YEARS, W/O.DEVASSY, HOUSE NO.9/150, VALOORAN HOUSE, NJARAKKAL P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 505. 3. NJARAKAL SERVICE CO-OP.BANK LTD., NO.E-91, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NJARAKKAL P.O., PIN-682 505. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== O.P(C) No.1168 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 15th day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T Plaintiff in O.S No.47 of 2008 of the court of learned Additional Sub Judge, Kochi is the petitioner before me in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution. It is prayed that learned Sub Judge may be directed to dispose of Exts.P1 to P7 and expedite trial and disposal of the suit within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. 2. According to the petitioner he paid the entire sale consideration to respondent No.1 and he was put in possession of the property. The title deeds were also given to him. In the meantime respondent No.1 is stated to have executed a settlement deed in favour of respondent No.2-his wife who mortgaged the property in favour of respondent No.3 and availed a loan. Hence the suit. 3. Evidence of petitioner was over by 07.12.2009. Thereafter it appears that counsel who was appearing for respondent No.1 earlier filed Ext.P1, application on 30.11.2009 to permit son of respondent No.1 to conduct the case alleging that O.P(C) No.1168 of 2010 -: 2 :- respondent No.1 is mentally ill. At that stage counsel for respondent No.1 is said to have relinquished engagement and another counsel appeared for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 filed Ext.P2 and P3 on 19.01.2010 to appoint her as guardian of respondent No.1. Exhibits P4 and P5, counters were filed on 20.01.2010. Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner to report on the mental condition of respondent No.1. Advocate Commissioner filed Ext.P6, report. Now nine months have elapsed after the report has been filed but the applications have not so far been disposed of. Hence the disposal of the suit is also delayed. Hence this petition. Learned counsel requests that since disposal of the suit is delayed petitioner is put to much hardship and inconvenience. Having regard to the circumstances stated, learned Sub Judge is directed to dispose of the applications and the suit as early as possible considering the fact that evidence of petitioner was closed as early as on 07.12.2009. Original Petition is disposed of with the above direction. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv