IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2010 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 8587 of 2010(O) ------------------------- I.A.NO.24/10 IN OS.117/2008 of SUB COURT, QUILANDY .................... PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- SREENIVASAN NAIR, EDAKKAT, POOLAKKOD VILLGE, CHOOLOOR DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. MR.G.UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- DEVADAS, POOTHAKUZHIYIL, POOLAKKOD VILLAGE, VELLANNUR DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------------------- WP(C) No.8587 of 2010-O ------------------------------------- Dated 16th March 2010 Judgment In this Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, all that the petitioner seeks is for a direction to the Sub Court, Quilandy to take up IA No.24/10 in OS No.117/08 and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. 2. The petitioner instituted O S No.117/08 before the Sub Court, Quilandy, which was a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale. The total sales consideration was Rs.26,05,257/-. According to the petitioner, an amount of Rs.11 lakhs was paid as advance. Since the defendant failed to honour his part of the contract, the suit had to be laid. It is submitted that the respondent entered appearance and filed a written statement, in which he admitted receipt of Rs.11 lakhs as advance. The case, after several adjournments, WPC 8587/10 2 was finally posted for trial on 07.12.2009. On 11.12.2009, the evidence of the plaintiff was closed. Since the defendant was not present on that day, the evidence in the suit was closed. Thereafter, the defendant filed IA No.1459/09 for re-opening the evidence, which was allowed by the Court below on payment of Rs.2,500/- as costs. The case was then posted to 17.12.2009. But, the respondent did not pay the costs and accordingly, the IA was dismissed. Thereafter, the suit was decreed ex parte on 23.12.2009, as per which the petitioner had to deposit the balance sales consideration of Rs.15,05,257/- within one month. He has done so. On 04.01.2010, the respondent filed IA No.24/10 under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, seeking to have the ex parte decree set aside. The Court below posted the said IA for hearing to 9.3.2010. A copy of the said IA is produced as Ext.P1. 3. The petitioner submits that the balance sales consideration deposited by him is lying idle in the WPC 8587/10 3 Court. Since it is causing prejudice to the petitioner, he moved IA No.131/10 in IA No.24/10 to advance the hearing of IA No.24/10 to an early date. The Court below on 25.2.2010, closed IA No.131/10 with the oral observation that since IA No.24/10 was posted to 9.3.2010, it will be heard on that day itself. On 9.3.2010, the Court below adjourned the case to 04.04.2010. The petitioner submits, the delay in disposing of the IA, seeking to set aside the ex parte decree, is causing irreparable loss and hardships to him. He, therefore, prays for a direction to the Court below to take up and dispose of IA No.24/10 filed by him in OS No.117/08. 4. In the light of the order that is proposed to be passed in this Petition, it is felt that it is unnecessary to issue notice to the respondent. In the light of the facts stated by the petitioner in this Petition, there is no reason as to why IA No.24/10 WPC 8587/10 4 should not be disposed of expeditiously, since the delay in disposing of the said IA is causing considerable loss and prejudice to the petitioner. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the Sub Court, Quilandy to take up IA No.24/10 in OS No.117/08 on the next working day itself and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta WPC 8587/10 5