IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH DECEMBER 2009 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 36732 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 506 /2009 IN AS.197/2008 of SUB COURT,NEYYATTINKARA .................... PETITIONER(S): IST RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT --------------------------------------- JOSEPH RAJAYYAN, AGED 73, S/O.JOSEPH, KALANGARAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, CHAIKOTTUKONAM, NEYYATTINKARA. BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.V.VIJULAL RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT & RESPONDENTS 2,3 & 4 ---------------------------------------------- 1. AREUL ENOSE, KARTHIKAPPALLI VEEDU, MARUTHATHOOR DESOM, NEYYATTINKARA. 2. SELVARAJ, S/O.JOSEPH, KULANGARA PUTHEN VEEDU OF -DO- 3. THANKAYYAN @ RAJAMONY, S/O.JOSEPH, OF DO 4. THANKARAJAN, S/O.JOSEPH, OF DO THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.36732 OF 2009 -------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of December 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Petitioner is the first respondent in A.S No.197 of 2008 on the file of the Sub Court,Neyyattinkara. Appeal is preferred against the final decree and judgment rendered in O.S No. 118 of 1979 of the Munsiff Court, Neyyattinkara which was a suit for partition. The appeal which has been admitted on the file of the court, in which Ext.P4 order of stay of the execution of the decree too granted, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, is barred by time. Though such a contention was raised challenging the maintainability of the appeal itself, without going into that question, the learned Sub Judge has passed Ext.P4 order staying the execution of the decree is the grievance espoused by the counsel. Petitioner/first defendant has filed an application (Ext.P5) to consider the maintainability of the appeal itself as time barred before considering it on merits, W.P.(C).No.36732 OF 2009 Page numbers and the limited relief canvassed at the time of hearing is for the issue of a writ/direction/order to the court below to consider Ext.P5 application expeditiously. 2. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I direct the court below to consider Ext.P5 application as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this judgment. Hand over a copy of the judgment to the learned counsel for the petitioner. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv