IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 26TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 27723 of 2008(A) -------------------------- OS.941/1995 of I ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER: ------------ T.K.SATYABABU,S/O.KRISHNAN, RESIDING AT A.M.14/313, ARUVIS VEEDU,AVANAVANCHERY VILLAGE, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH RESPONDENTS: ------------- K.V.SARADA, T.C.2/3240, KULANGARA LANE, PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTONERY HOLDER N.CROMPTION, TC.4/2168,NELLINILAYAM, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/09/2008, THE COURT ON DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. -------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.27723 OF 2008-A ---------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of September, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner, who is the defendant in O.S.No.941/1995 on the file of the first Additional Sub Court, Trivandrum, challenges Ext.P11 common order dated 4.9.2008 passed by the learned Sub Judge dismissing her applications filed as in I.A.Nos.2308 & 2305/2008. I.A.No.2308/2008 was filed under Order XXVI Rules 9 and 10 for the appointment of an advocate commissioner and the other petition was filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 seeking temporary injunction. The petitioner is the sole defendant in the said suit which has not even reached the stage of trial due to various interlocutory applications and the orders thereon necessitating the direction issued by this Court in Ext.P10 judgment dated 25.8.2008. The subject matter of the suit is 14.500 cents of which 4.567 cents is the subject matter of a counter claim said to have been made by the petitioner. The said smaller portion of the property was got delivered through court by the first plaintiff in an earlier suit, O.S.No.59/50, and the present plaintiff in O.S.No.941/1995 is an assignee of the said first plaintiff. Along with the suit, two other WPC.NO.27723/2008 . 2 suits namely O.S.Nos.307 and 229/2007 had also been posted for joint trial. In an earlier judgment dated 3.3.2005 in W.P.C.No.6476/2007 this Court had directed the Sub Judge to include O.S.No.941/1995 in the special list, if possible during the first week of June 2007 and dispose of the same within two months of that date. The said writ petition was necessitated on account of an order passed by the court below on an application filed by the petitioner herein to remove the suit from the list. The learned subordinate judge had allowed the said application and had removed the suit from the list. It was under these circumstances that the plaintiff approached this Court by filing W.P.C.No.24287/2008 and this Court as per judgment dated 25.8.2008 directed the court below to dispose of the suit expeditiously as possible and at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of the judgment. There is a further direction that the Sub Judge shall proceed with the trial of the suit from the next posting date onwards. The said writ petition was disposed of after hearing both sides. The petitioner herein, who was the respondent in that writ petition had no submission before this Court at that time that her application filed as I.A.Nos.2308/2008 and 2305/2008 were pending before the court below since May, 2008 and that the WPC.NO.27723/2008 . 3 suit should not be directed to be tried and disposed of without disposing of the said applications. When the learned Sub Judge took up the suit for trial, an order was pressed on the said applications filed by the petitioner. The applications were dismissed by Ext.P11 order wherein the court below has given valid reasons as to why the said applications cannot be allowed. There were already three commission reports in the case. If the petitioner is desirous of identifying the particular extent of property which she claims to be delivered over in execution of the other decree, nothing prevented her from filing an application in that behalf. Even going by ground No.9 in the writ petition, the written statement to the counter claim was filed as early as on 27.11.2007. Still the petitioner did not think it fit to file an application for issuing a commission for identifying the property claimed by him, even assuming that such an application could be allowed. I have no hesitation to conclude that the attempt of the petitioner is only to protract the trial of the case. I do not find any good reasons to interfere with Ext.P11 order. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. V. RAMKUMAR,JUDGE. WPC.NO.27723/2008 . 4 cl