IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 31945 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.35/1999 of SUB COURT,THODUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER(S)/1ST PLAINTIFF: --------------- BABU P KURIAKOSE,AGED 51 YEARS S/O.LAE KURIAKOSE,PALLATHUKUDY HOUSE, ADIMALI KARA,MANNAMKANDAM VILLAGE,IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS M.JACOB RESPONDENT(S)/DEFENDANTS: --------------- 1. KATHIRESAN AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT 18 ROOM LINES MUNNAR KARA, K.D.H VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK. 2. NACHIAMMAL W/O.KATHIRESAN,AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, DO..DO.. 3. MUTHUKUMAR S/O.KATHIRESAN,AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, DO..DO.. 4. RANGARAJAN S/O.KATHIRESAN,AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, DO..DO.. 5. DAMODARAN S/O.NARAYANAN, AGED 65 YEARS,KALLUVEETIL HOUSE KUNCHITHANNY KARA,PALLIVASSAL VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK. 6. THANKAMMA W/O.GOPALAN, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, KALLUVEETIL HOUSE KUNCHITHANNY KARA, PALLIVASSAL VILLAGE,DEVIKULAM TALUK. WPC.31945/09 7. GANESAN S/O.SUBRAMANIAN,AGED 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT POTHAMEDU KARA, PALLIVASSAL VILLAGE,DEVIKULAM TALUK. 8. MUTHAIAH S/O.SUBRAMANIAN,AGED 44 YEARS RESIDING AT POTHAMEDU KARA, PALLIVASSAL VILLAGE,DEVIKULAM TALUK. 9. RAJAN S/O.ISAHAK, AGED 42 YEARS RESIDING AT POTHAMEDU KARA, PALLIVASSAL VILLAGE,DEVIKULAM TALUK. 10. SELVAN, S/O.RAJU, AGED 40 YEARS RESIDING AT POTHAMEDU KARA, PALLIVASSAL VILLAGE,DEVIKULAM TALUK. 11. RAJENDRAN S/O.DAS, AGED 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT POTHAMEDU KARA, PALLIVASSAL VILLAGE,DEVIKULAM TALUK. 12. PALANI S/O.MOOKAN,AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT POTHAMEDU KARA, PALLIVASSAL VILLAGE,DEVIKULAM TALUK. 13. JESTIN S/O.LAWRENCE, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS RESIDING AT POTHAMEDU KARA, PALLIVASSAL VILLAGE,DEVIKULAM TALUK. 14. K.CHANDRAN S/O.KARUPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT NEW MUNNAR DIVISION OF SEVANMALLY ESTATE, KDH VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.31945 OF 2009 (O) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the 1st plaintiff in O.S.No.35 of 1999 on the file of the Sub Court, Thodupuzha. He has also filed another suit as O.S.No.128 of 2004 before the Munsiff Court, Devikulam. Some of the defendants in the suit filed another suit as O.S.No.133 of 2004 before the Munsiff Court, Devikulam. On a previous writ petition moved by the petitioner, impeaching the steps taken by the revenue authorities for canceling the patta stated to have been issued in his favour, this Court had directed for transfer of the two suits pending before the Munsiff Court, Devikulam to the Sub Court, Thodupuzha, where the suit O.S.No.35 of 1999 filed by the petitioner was pending, leaving it open to the learned Sub Judge to consider whether a joint trial of the three suits is feasible or not. After such transfer of the two suits from the Munsiff Court, Devikulam, the learned Sub Judge considered WPC.31945/09 2 the feasibility of the joint trial and found it was not practicable nor feasible. That order passed by the learned Sub Judge was challenged before this Court by the petitioner by way of a writ petition, in which, Ext.P3 judgment was rendered confirming the order of the learned Sub Judge. Pursuant thereto, the trial in O.S.No.35 of 1999 is practically over and it is stated that the case is posted for judgment tomorrow. During the progress of the trial of that case, the petitioner had moved an amendment application for making some corrections in the boundary of the plaint schedule and that amendment being declined by the trial court attributing delay in furnishing copy of the order passed on the amendment application, petitioner approached this Court with a writ petition seeking issue of direction to the court below for supply of the copy of the order and also to stay the proceedings in O.S.No.35 of 1999 for a grace period to enable him to challenge the correctness of the order dismissing his amendment application. That writ petition was disposed by Ext.P5 judgment directing the court below to issue copy of the order passed in the amendment application with a further direction to the court below to WPC.31945/09 3 adjourn the pronouncement of the judgment in O.S.No.35 of 1999 for a period of three weeks from the date of the judgment. Ext.P5 judgment was rendered by this Court on 19.10.2009. Petitioner has again approached this Court with the present writ petition advancing a case that he has filed a Special Leave Petition before the apex court questioning the correctness of Ext.P3 judgment rendered in his previous writ petition by which the order passed by the learned Sub Judge declining his request for joint trial of O.S.No.35 of 1999 with two other suits transferred from Munsiff Court, Devikulam, was confirmed. Special Leave Petition so preferred awaits for posting and consideration by the apex court, is the case now presented for directing the court below to adjourn the pronouncement of the judgment in O.S.No.35 of 1999 for a period of three weeks. Having regard to the facts and circumstances presented and the submissions made by the learned counsel, I find that the petitioner has preferred a SLP challenging the order passed in a previous writ petition moved by him before this Court, is not a sufficient ground to enable him to get adjourned the pronouncement of the judgment in WPC.31945/09 4 O.S.No.35 of 1999, the trial of which has practically been completed. This Court has directed the court below to expedite the trial of the suit fixing an outer limit for its disposal taking note that the suit had been instituted a decade ago. On writ petitions filed by the petitioner from time to time, for one reason or other, the trial of the suit, it is noticed, has been considerably delayed. Filing of the SLP against the judgment passed in one such writ petition under no circumstance can be considered as a sufficient ground for adjourning the pronouncement of the judgment in the suit. Writ petition lacks merit, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp