IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2010 / 22ND ASWINA 1932 OP(C).No. 331 of 2010(O) ------------------------ OS.510/2009 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM .................... PETITIONER ------------------------------ M/S GODREJ & BOYCE MFG.CO.LTD,REG.OFF;AT PIROJSHANAGAR,VIKROLI,MUMBAI-400079 AND HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT DOOR NO.IX/418/A5,A6, A8 & A9,NEAR INFOPARK, EDACHIRA, THENGODE.P.O, KAKKANAD,COCHIN-30,REP;BY ITS COMMERCIAL MANAGER, MR.T.V.SCARIYACHAN,S/O.V.CHERIAN,AGED 56,RESIDING AT FLATNO.6,FLOURSQUARE MANOR APARTMENTS, NEAR MODEL ENGINEERING COLLEGEM, THRIKKAKARA, KAKKANAD, COCHIN 30. BY ADV. SRI.R.PADMARAJ SRI.ANTONY JOSEPH MARIADAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. M/S.KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD,(KTDFC),TRANS TOWERS, VAZHUTHAKKADU,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695014, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY HOME SECRETARY,GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 001. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.331 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of October, 2010. JUDGMENT Plaintiff in O.S.No.510 of 2009 of the court of learned Additional Sub Judge-II, Thiruvananthapuram is the petitioner before me. He claims to have entered into an agreement dated 16.01.2006 and a supplementary agreement dated 02.08.2007 with the respondents as per which he undertook to conduct interior work, etc. in the office of respondent No.1 at Thiruvananthapuram incurring a cost of Rs.3,69,00,000/-. He was paid certain amount. For recovery of the balance sum of Rs.30,60,976/- he sued the respondents in the court of learned Additional Sub Judge-II, Thiruvananthapuram. Case of the petitioner is that respondent No.1 has admitted that Rs.24,51,446/- is due to petitioner but that amount is withheld consequent to some vigilance enquiry in the matter. Petitioner seeks a direction to respondent No.1 to disburse the admitted amount and a direction to the learned Sub Judge to expedite trial and disposal of the suit. 2. I am afraid, in this proceeding no direction could be given to respondent No.1 to disburse the amount which according to the petitioner respondent No.1 was admitted to be due to the petitioner. If petitioner is entitled to get that amount he has to invoke other remedies if any available to him. Civil court cannot ask, at this stage respondent No.1 to disburse the amount. OP(C) No.331/2010 2 However having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Sub Judge is directed to ensure that the case is disposed of as early as possible since petitioner is suffering loss. Resultantly this petition is disposed of directing the learned Additional Sub Judge-II, Thiruvananthapuram to dispose of O.S.No.510 of 2009 as early as possible. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks