IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2011 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1932 OP(C).No. 815 of 2011(O) OS.9/1989 OF THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE PETITIONERS --------------------- 1. A.T.MAMMED KOYA, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O. K.P.KASIM HAJI, KACHERI AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. A.T.ALI KOYA, S/O. K.P.KASIM HAJI, KACHERI AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA SMT.D.S.THUSHARA SMT.RASHMI RAVINDRAN RESPONDENT: --------------- A.T.UMMAR KOYA, SUPERVILLA, JAYANTHI NAGAR HOUSING COLONY, KOZHIKODE- 673 001. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ O.P.(C). NO. 815 OF 2011 O ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 1st day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT O.S.No.9 of 1989, on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Kozhikode, was filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs for dissolution of partnership, rendition of accounts and partition of the property. A preliminary decree was passed on 17.3.1992. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed. He filed a report. It would appear that the Commissioner suggested that division of the building in specie is not possible. The court passed an order for sale. That order was challenged before this Court in A.S.No.555 of 1996, which was disposed of as per Ext.P3 judgment dated 2.7.2009 directing the court below to seek the assistance of an expert, Engineer or Architect, to explore the feasibility of division of the property in specie. Thereafter, a panel of Engineers was submitted by both sides. The court below appointed an expert from the panel submitted by the plaintiffs. The defendant filed I.A.No.611 of 2011 in I.A.No.6557 of 1992 to review the order dated 29.1.2011, appointing Sri.Mammu as the expert. It was contended in that application that O.P.(C) NO.815 OF 2011 :: 2 :: an expert from the panel submitted by the defendant also should have been appointed by the court below. I.A.No.611 of 2011 is pending. 2. The prayer in the Original Petition is to issue a direction to the court below to finalize the proceedings in I.A.No.6557 of 1992 (the final decree proceedings) and also for a direction to the court below to consider and pass orders on Ext.P8 (I.A.No.611 of 2011). 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I think the court below can be directed to dispose of I.A.No.611 of 2011 as expeditiously as possible and, at any rate, before 12.4.2011. It is also necessary for the court below to dispose of the final decree proceedings expeditiously. But, at present, it is not proper to fix any particular time limit within which the final decree application should be disposed of. O.P.(C) NO.815 OF 2011 :: 3 :: In the facts and circumstances, the Original Petition is disposed of as follows: a) The Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kozhikode IA shall dispose of I.A.No.611 of 2011 in I.A.No.6557 of 1992 in O.S.No.9 of 1989, as expeditiously as possible and, at any rate, before 12.4.2011. b) The court below shall expedite the final disposal of I.A.No.6557 of 1992 (final decree proceedings). (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/