IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2009 / 22ND SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 20046 of 2009(O) --------------------------------------- AS.5/2001 OF SUB COURT,KOTTARAKKARA. .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- EBRAHIMKUTTY RAWTHER, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. THANGAL BAVA RAWTHER, RESIDING AT"THEJAS" PALIMUKKU, NADUKUNNU MURI, PATHANAPURAM VILLAGE FROM, PARALOTTUKIZHAKKETHIL PUNNALA MURI AND VILLAGE. BY ADVS. MR.P.HARIDAS, SMT.SIMLA PRABHAKARAN, SMT.SHIJIMOL M.MATHEW, MR.RENJI GEORGE CHERIAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. MUHAMMED HUSSAIN,AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O. THANGAL BAVA RAWTHER, POARALOTTUKIZHAKKETHIL PUNNALA MURI & VILLAGE. 2. PATHUMMAL BEEVI, PARALOTTU KIZHAKKETHIL, PUNNALA MURI AND VILLAGE. 3. UMMASALUMMAL BEEVI,THENGUMTHARAYIL, PUNNALA MURI AND VILLAGE. 4. ALIMMAL BEEVI,THENGUMTHARAYIL, PUNNALA MURI AND VILLAGE. 5. IYSHA BEEVI, THENGUMTHARAYIL, PUNNALA MURI AND VILLAGE. 6. BEEVI AMMAL, THENGUMTHARAYIL, PUNNALA MURI AND VILLAGE. W.P.(C). NO.20046/2009-O: 7. SUBAIDA BEEVI,ADIKKATUKULANGARA PUTHAN BUNGLOW, NOORANADU, MAVELIKKARA TALUK. 8. FASEELA BEEVI, KAREELUVILA KIZHAKKATHIL, EDATHARA, PATHANAPURAM. 9. RAMLA BEEVI, PALLIVADAKKATHIL, KADUVATHODU, PATTAZHI VADAKKEKARA. R1 BY ADV.MR.S.SREEKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/08/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.20046/2009-O: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 31ST OCTOBER, 1997 IN O.S. NO. 376/96 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, PUNALUR. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2000 IN O.S. NO. 373/1998 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, PUNALUR. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE R.1. IN I.A. NO. 35/2001 IN A.S. NO. 5/2001 DTD. 09/01/2001 BEFORE THE SUB COURT, KOTARAKKARA. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 05/02/2009 IN I.A. NO. 35/2001 IN A.S. NO. 5/2001 OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE, KOTTARAKKARA. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.20046 OF 2009 (O) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: i. to call for the records leading to Ext.P4 and may set aside the same. ii. to issue such other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Honourable Court may deem just and fit proper under the circumstances of the case. 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.376 of 1996 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Punalur. Suit is one for partition in which a preliminary decree has already been passed. Respondents are the defendants. Pursuant to the passing of the preliminary decree in the above suit, the 1st respondent/ 4th defendant in the suit instituted a fresh suit seeking a decree of mandatory injunction alleging that the sharers except the plaintiff had agreed to release their share in his WPC.20046/09 2 favour which according to him was already set apart to him by the father. That suit numbered as O.S.No.373 of 1998, after trial, was dismissed. Against the dismissal of that suit, the 1st respondent preferred an appeal as A.S.No.5 of 2001 before the Sub Court, Kottarakkara. In that appeal, the 1st respondent/appellant moved an application for staying the final decree proceedings in the partition suit O.S.No.376 of 1996, and the appellate court passed Ext.P4 order to the effect that final decree proceedings can go on but passing of the final decree is stayed. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P4 order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the counsel on both sides. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the appeal was filed in 2001, the interim order covered by Ext.P4 was passed just a few months back. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent submits that the appeal is ripe for hearing and the court below can be directed to dispose it of expeditiously. WPC.20046/09 3 Having regard to the fact that appeal is filed as early in 2001, I direct the learned Sub Judge, Kottarakkara to hear and dispose the appeal as expeditiously as possible within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In view of the above direction, the propriety and correctness of Ext.P4 order is not examined by this Court; but, I make it clear if for any reason like noncompletion of service on the respondent, the disposal of the appeal is delayed, beyond the time limit fixed by this Court, the learned Sub Judge shall pass appropriate orders for vacating Ext.P4 order. Subject to the above observations, this writ petition is closed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp