IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2009 / 3RD ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 7298 of 2009(O) ----------------------------------- (OS.1098/2005 of 2nd ADL. SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM) .............................................. PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- JESSY RESQUINHA, RESIDING AT 83, "Z" BLOCK, ANNA NAGAR, MADRAS-40. BY ADV. SRI.R.ANILKUMAR SRI.P.BANI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. HELEN BRITTO, W/O.CYRIL BRITTO, POMPOZHIYIL HOUSE, CMC III, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DIST. REP. BY CYRIL BRITTO, S/O.CONTAD BRITTO, CMC III, CHERTHALA. 2. MARIAMMA JOSEPH, PROPRIETRIX, JULIYA PICTURE, RANGE APARTMENTS 3/2, VENGEESWARAR NAGAR, 2ND TAIL ROAD, VADAPALANI, MADRAS 300 026 WITH OFFICE AT 30/1850, BAVAT COLENY, PULLEPPADY JUNCTION, COCHIN-35. ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.7298 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs: “i) To issue appropriate writ direction or order commanding the II Additional Sub Judge, Ernakulam to dispose of the original suit O.S.No.1098/1995 as expeditiously as possible not later than two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. ii) To issue such other writ, direction or order to hear the position to vacate the attachment of the amount due to the petitioner deposited in Munsiff Court, Ernakulam in O.S.No.228/1994 which was finalised in S.A.No.301/2002.” 2. Petitioner is the first defendant in O.S.NO.1098/95 pending on the file of the II Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam. Suit was one for accounts, filed by the first respondent in the petition. Second respondent is the second defendant in that suit. There was an earlier suit between the petitioner and also the first respondent in relation to some claims as between them over a W.P.(C).No.7298 of 2009 - O 2 Malayalam film in which both had expended some funds. A decree was passed in the suit as early as on 15.9.95 which provided that the petitioner and also the first respondent are entitled to one half right over Rs.5 Lakhs of sum which was deposited in that case by the second respondent. The first respondent got release of the amount awarded to him in that decree i.e., Rs.2.5 Lakhs with interest due thereof. First respondent thereupon filed a suit for settlement of accounts as O.S.No.228/94 alleging that the accounts between him and the petitioner have to be settled by a decree of the court after adjudication, in which the second respondent was also impleaded as a co-defendant. In that suit, the first respondent got an order of attachment before judgment of the sum which was decreed to the first defendant in O.S.No.228/94 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Ernakulam. That suit filed for a settlement of accounts in 1995, still continues, and the accounts, registers and documents over which settlement is sought for remain to be checked and verified by a chartered accountant appointed for that purpose. At that stage, the first defendant has approached this Court for W.P.(C).No.7298 of 2009 - O 3 an expeditious disposal of that suit invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the counsel on both sides. 4. A report from the learned Sub Judge was called for as to the time required for disposal of the suit. It was reported that the chartered accountant after verification of the accounts has not furnished the report and if such report is received the suit can be disposed of without further delay. The learned sub Judge was again directed to ascertain from the chartered accountant the time required for furnishing a report after verifying the accounts. In compliance with the direction it is reported that the chartered accountant has sought for two months more time to finalise verification of the registers and accounts. The request made by the chartered accountant is also enclosed with the report of the learned Sub Judge. Having regard to the facts and circumstances presented as above, I find that a time limit has to be fixed for an expeditious disposal of the suit which is pending before the court for more than 14 years, to advance the ends of justice. The W.P.(C).No.7298 of 2009 - O 4 learned Sub Judge shall dispose the suit, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. He shall take effective steps to see that the report is filed by the chartered accountant without further delay, at any rate, not beyond the period sought in the request. In case on account of any impediment the learned sub Judge is not able to dispose the suit within the time limit fixed by this Court, I make it clear that it will be open to the petitioner/first defendant to move that court to get release of the amount decreed in his favour, which is now in deposit, on furnishing security. The learned Sub judge in that event shall pass appropriate orders over the attachment ordered in respect of the amount covered by the deposit. The writ petition is disposed of as indicated above. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-