IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2009 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 8484 of 2009(O) ------------------------- AS.42/2008 of SUB COURT, NEDUMANGAD OS.227/2007 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT,NEDUMANGAD .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHAMNATH.A.RAHIM,AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL RAHIM,DILSHAD MANZIL, KAZHAKKOOTTAM P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.RANJITH NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. M.PRABHA,W/O.REGHUNATHAN, MANGLOW VILLA VEEDU, PERUNGUZHI DESOM,AZHOOR VILLAGE. 2. MONO.P.R.,D/O.M.PRABHA, MANGLOW VILLA VEEDU, PERUNGUZHI DESOM,AZHOOR VILLAGE. 3. SHOBHA.P.R.,D/O.M.PRABHA, MANGLOW VILLA VEEDU, PERUNGUZHI DESOM,AZHOOR VILLAGE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2009, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 8676 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.8484 of 2009 & W.P.(C) No.8676 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 7th day of April, 2009 JUDGMENT These Writ Petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment since the petitioners are the same and also since some of the questions involved are the same. 2. The prayer in W.P.(C) No.8484 of 2009 is to direct the Sub Court, Nedumangad to dispose of A.S.No.42 of 2008 pending before it expeditiously. The prayer in W.P.C.No.8676 of 2009 is for a direction to the Sub Court, Nedumangad to dispose of A.S.No.44 of 2008 pending before it expeditiously. 3. The respondents in W.P.(C) No.8484 of 2009 filed O.S.No.227 of 2007, on the file of the court of the Munsiff of Nedumangad, against the Writ Petitioner and others for injunction. The trial court dismissed the suit. A.S.No.42 of 2008 is filed by the plaintiffs challenging the judgment and decree of the trial court. The respondent in W.P.(C) No.8676 of 2009 filed O.S.No.237 of 2007, on the file of the Munsiff’s Court, Nedumangad, against the Writ Petitioner and others for injunction. That suit was dismissed WPC Nos.8484 & 8676/2009 2 by the trial court. The plaintiffs have filed A.S.No.44 of 2008 on the file of the Sub Court, Nedumangad. A.S.Nos.42 and 44 of 2008 are pending disposal. The prayer of the Writ Petitioner is to dispose of these two appeals expeditiously. 4. The case of the Writ Petitioner is that the property in question in the suits was involved in a suit for redemption of mortgage filed by his predecessor and the property was purchased by the Writ Petitioner. It is also stated that the property was delivered to the assignor of the Writ Petitioner. According to the Writ Petitioner, the suits, namely, O.S.No.227 of 2007 and 237 of 2007 were filed by the assignees of the judgment debtors in the redemption suit. A contention was taken that the suits are hit by Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The trial court accepted these contentions and the suits were dismissed. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the Writ Petitioner relies on a co-relation register to prove the particular survey number in respect of which delivery was effected. The co-relation register is produced to prove the corresponding survey numbers before the resurvey. According to the respondents in the Writ Petition, the co-relation register is not a WPC Nos.8484 & 8676/2009 3 genuine document. They have filed an application to get the opinion of the expert in respect of the entries in the register. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner that it is not the co-relation register that is relied on by the respondents in the Writ Petition, but, a correction register and that there is no dispute regarding the genuineness of the co-relation register. 6. It is not necessary to decide the question as to whether the co-relation register or correction register is to be accepted in evidence or not. That is a matter to be decided by the court below. Now, the question is whether the prayer made by the petitioner for an early disposal of the appeals should be granted. 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the dispute is pending for a quite long number of years in the earlier suit and the Writ Petitioner is facing the second round of litigation. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that it is necessary to issue a direction to the lower appellate court to dispose of A.S.Nos.42 of 2008 and 44 of 2008 expeditiously giving priority to the appeals. The direction to dispose of the appeals expeditiously should not be taken as a bar to the lower appellate court in considering the appropriate WPC Nos.8484 & 8676/2009 4 interlocutory applications in a proper manner. At the same time, the parties should not be allowed to delay the disposal of the appeals. The Writ Petitions are allowed as above. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl