IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH SATURDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1933 OP(C).No. 3756 of 2011(O) -------------------------------------- IA. 3817/2011 IN AS.110/2011 OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- PUSHPA, AGED 71, W/O.VELAPPAN, CHITTEZHATH HOUSE, KUMBALAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL, SMT.C.S.RAJANI. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- BENNY. A.X, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.A.B. XAVIER, ARACKAL HOUSE, CHALIKKAVATTOM, VENNALA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT- 682 028. BY THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/11/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs OP(C).No. 3756 of 2011(O) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL JUDGMENT DATED 27/6/2007 IN OS NO.1017/1994. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM PETITION IN EA NO.140/2010 IN EP NO.58/2009 IN OS NO.1017/1994 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO EXT.P2 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19/7/2011 IN EA NO.140/2010 IN EP NO.58/2009 IN OS NO.1017/1994. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL SUIT NO.110/2011 BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT OF ERNAKULAM. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE IA NO.3817/2011 IN AS NO.110/2011. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO EXT.P6. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17/10/2011 IN IA NO.3817/2011 IN AS NO.110/11. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.3756 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of November, 2011. JUDGMENT 2nd respondent in A.S.No.110 of 2011 of the court of learned Additional District Judge-I, Ernakulam is the petitioner. That is an appeal filed by the 1st respondent against dismissal of a claim petition – E.A.No.140 of 2010 preferred under Order XXI, Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”) in E.P.No.58 of 2009 in O.S.No.1017 of 1994 of the court of learned Principal Munsiff, Ernakulam. Petitioner and others were executing the final decree passed in that case when the 1st respondent came with E.A.No.140 of 2010. That application was dismissed against which 1st respondent filed A.S.No.110 of 2011 with I.A.No.3817 of 2011 for stay. In that application, learned Additional District Judge stayed the execution proceedings for a period of six months as per Ext.P8, order dated 17.10.2011. That order is under challenge. 2. Learned counsel submits that petitioner is aged 71 years and that litigation started in the year 1994. It is submitted that there are other aged persons also waiting to get final decree executed but, on account of the stay it is being prolonged. Learned counsel requested that in case Ext.P8, order is not set aside, learned Additional District Judge may be directed to dispose of the appeal within a time frame fixed by this Court. 3. Since the appeal is of the year, 2011, I do not think it necessary to OP(C)No.3756/2011 2 issue a direction for time bound disposal of the appeal without understanding the volume of work and priority for disposal of older cases. But the grievance of petitioner has to be considered. Hence I make it clear that it is open to the petitioner to place her grievance before learned Additional District Judge and request for early disposal of the appeal after completing the preliminary steps in the matter. With the above observation, this Original Petition is closed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks