IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 31714 of 2008(A) ----------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED / / IN OS 17/1976 OS18/1976 IN OS.16/1976 of SUB COURT, MANJERI .................... PETITIONER : ---------------- VALLUVANATTUDAYA AYIRANAZHI KOVILAKATH SATHIAKUMARAN RAJA, S/O.KUNJUKUTTY @ KUTTICHERIYAMMA THAMPURATTY, MANJERI P.O., ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A RESPONDENTS : ------------------- 1. M.C.CHERIYAN, S/O.M.C.CHANDY, SULTHAN BUNGLOW, MALAPARAMBA, KOZHIKODE. 2. M.C.MATHEW, S/O.M.C.CHANDY, SULTHAN BUNGLOW, MALAPARAMBA, KOZHIKODE. 3. M.C.THAMBI, S/O.M.C.CHANDY, SULTHAN BUNGLOW, MALAPARAMBA, KOZHIKODE. 4. MRS.ELIZABETH CHERIYAN, W/O.LATE M.P.CHERIAN, SULTHAN BUNGLOW, MALAPARAMBA, KOZHIKODE. 5. MRS.M.C.GEORGE, W/O.LATE M.C.GEORGE, SULTHAN BUNGLOW, MALAPARAMBA, KOZHIKODE. 6. M.C.CHANDI @ BABU, S/O.LATE M.C.GEORGE, SULTHAN BUNGLOW, MALAPARAMBA,KOZHIKODE. 7. MEERA POTHEN, W/O.LATE M.C.POTHEN, SULTHAN BUNGLOW, MALAPARAMBA, KOZHIKODE. WP(C).No. 31714 of 2008(A) 8. SAJAY, S/O.LATE M.C.POTHEN, SULTHAN BUNGLOW, MALAPARAMBA, KOZHIKODE. 9. SHANAS, D/O.LATE M.C.POTHEN, SULTHAN BUNGLOW, MALAPARAMBA, KOZHIKODE. 10. SHARAN, D/O.LATE M.C.POTHEN, SULTHAN BUNGLOW, MALAPARAMBA, KOZHIKODE. 11. SHAREENA, D/O.LATE M.C.POTHEN, SULTHAN BUNGLOW, MALAPARAMBA, KOZHIKODE. 12. SARASU POTHEN, SULTHAN BUNGLOW, MALAPARAMBA, KOZHIKODE. 13. M.C.GEORGE, SULTHAN BUNGLOW, MALAPARAMBA, KOZHIKODE. 14. OMANA SAMUEL, SULTHAN BUNGLOW, MALAPARAMBA, KOZHIKODE. 15. RAMANI KOSI, SULTHAN BUNGLOW, MALAPARAMBA, KOZHIKODE. 16. AMMINI IYPE, SULTHAN BUNGLOW, MALAPARAMBA, KOZHIKODE. 17. AMMU MATHEW, SULTHAN BUNGLOW, MALAPARAMBA, KOZHIKODE. 18. P.P.ABDULLA, S/O.HAMZA HAJI, RESIDING AT PERUMBATHUR PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, P.O. 70 ACRES, KALIKAVU (VIA), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 19. T.C.KOYAKUTTY THANGAL, S/O.HABEEBKOYA THANGAL, RESIDING AT THARAMAL CHEMBAKATH HOUSE, 70 ACRES P.O., KALIKAVU (VIA), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.) - R18&19 SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON - R18 & 19 SRI.JIBU P THOMAS - R18 & 19 SRI.P.S.APPU - R18 & 19 SRI.T.KRISHNEN UNNI (SR.) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------ W.P(c) No. 31714 of 2008 ------------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT Heard counsel on both sides. 2. Petitioner is one of the decree holders in O.S. No.16 of 1976, O.S. No.17 of 1976 and O.S. No.18 of 1976 on the file of Sub Court, Manjeri. Decrees were passed in favour of the plaintiff for recovery of possession of the suit properties. It is stated that when the Amin attempted to deliver the property, he was physically obstructed by certain persons, according to petitioner at the instance of the judgment debtors who suffered the decrees. Decree holders filed an application to direct the Amine to effect the delivery with police assistance. That request was disallowed. Decree holder challenged that order in W.P(c) No.32981 of 2006. A learned single judge of this court as per Exhibit P1, judgment dated 25/03/2008 disposed of the writ petition directing paper publication to be effected so that, anybody who wanted to object to the delivery could do so. Leaned Single Judge also directed that considering the years that have passed since W.P(c) No. 31714/ 2008 2 litigation commenced, the executing court will expedite the matter. Complaint of petitioner is that in spite of that direction, court below as per order dated 4-04-2008 granted time to the objectors to produce documents on which they claimed right. Petitioner/decree holder filed application for review of that order which the learned Sub Judge as per Exhibit P5, order dated 17-09-2008 dismissed. It is in challenge of that the petitioner/decree holder has come to this court in this proceeding praying that Exhibit P5, order be quashed and also for a direction for expeditious disposal of the claim/objection. Counsel for petitioner submits that the matter is pending without adjudication for a long. Counsel for respondents contend that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai [2003 (3)K.L.T. 490] there is no scope for entertaining this writ petition. It is also contended by the learned counsel that Exhibit P5 order cannot be challenged since no sufficient ground for review as provided in Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure was made out. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that he is not now challenging Exhibit P5 order. Hence that part of the contention of the W.P(c) No. 31714/ 2008 3 respondents need not be gone into. 4. I am not persuaded to think that the decision relied on by the learned counsel for respondents prevented this court from directing the court below to dispose of the claim/objection as the case may be, as expeditiously as possible. It is true that considering the nature of claim/objection and the enquiry to that may be required to be made on that it may not be feasible to direct time bound disposal. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case it is only appropriate to direct the learned Sub Judge to dispose of the claim/objection as the case may be at the earliest. I find that such a direction was issued by the learned single judge of this court also in Exhibit P1, judgment. Hence the learned Sub Judge is directed to comply with the direction for earlier disposal contained in Exhibit P1 judgment. With the above direction this writ petition is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE scm