IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 1ST AUGUST 2011 / 10TH SRAVANA 1933 OP(C).No. 2483 of 2011(O) ------------------------- OS.200/1995 IN F.D.I.A.NO.29/2000 of SUB COURT, VATAKARA .................... PETITIONER: ---------------------- PADINJAREPUNATHIL PREMI, W/O. VASU, AGED 47 YEARS, VYKILASSERY AMSOM DESOM, VADAKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.MOHANAN V.T.K. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. KUTTIAMBRATH THAZHAKUNIYIL SAROJINI, W/O. NANU, 38/8D, E.Q.A. COMPLEX, PURAVATHANGAL.P.O., MADARAS-114. 2. KUTTIAMBARATH THAZHAKUNIYIL RAJAN, W/O. KANNAN, AGED 38 YEARS, MERCHANT, KARTHIKAPPALY AMSOM DESOM,KURINJALIYODE.P.O.,PIN-673 542. 3. KUTTIAMBRATH THAZHAKUNIYIL CHANDRI, W/O. KUNHIKANNAN, AGED 36 YEARS, KARTHIKAPPALY AMSOM DESOM,KURINJALIYODE.P.O. PIN-673 542. 4. KUTTIAMBRATH THAZHAKUNIYIL CHANDRAN, S/O. KANNAN, AGED 45 YEARS, KARTHIKAPPALY AMSOM DESOM,KURINJALIYODE.P.O. PIN-673 542. 5. KUTTIAMBRATH THAZHAKUNIYIL AJITHA, W/O. KUNHIRAMAN, AGED 28 YEARS, KARTHIKAPPALY AMSOM DESOM,KURINJALIYODE.P.O.PIN-673 542. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss OPC.NO.2483/2011 O APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.200/95 OF THE SUB COURT, VATAKARA. P2: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY DEFENDANTS 2 TO 5 IN O.S.NO.200/95. P3: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE 1ST DEFENDANT IN O.S.NO.200/95. P4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S.NO.200/95 OF THE SUB COURT, VATAKARA. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== O.P(C) No.2483 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 01st day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is plaintiff in O.S. No.200 of 1995 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Vatakara. That is a suit for partition. The court below passed a preliminary decree. That was followed by filing I.A. No.29 of 2000 for passing the final decree. Grievance of petitioner is that though the suit is filed in the year 1995 and preliminary decree itself was passed in the year 2000, the matter is still pending before the learned Sub Judge. It is submitted by learned counsel that the only contention raised by the contesting defendants is that the deceased mother of first defendant claimed that a portion of the property exclusively belonged to her. But petitioner has produced document to show that whatever property she had, has already been disposed of by her. It is prayed that a direction may be issued to the court below to dispose of the final decree application within a time frame. 2. Without understanding the volume of work of the court concerned and nature of contention that learned Sub Judge has to decide in the final decree application, no direction for time bound O.P(C) No.2483 of 2011 -: 2 :- disposal of the final decree application could be given. But fact remained that suit is filed in the year 1995 and the application for passing final decree was filed 11 years back. These circumstances should alert learned Sub Judge for an expeditious disposal of the final decree proceeding. In the circumstances learned Sub Judge is directed to make every endeavour to dispose of the final decree application expeditiously having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Original Petition is disposed of with the above direction. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv