IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2010 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 10577 of 2010(O) -------------------------------------- OS.439/2009 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM ............................................... PETITIONER(S): --------------------- JITHESH.P.R., J.J. NIVAS, PALACHUVADU, KAKKANAD.P.O. BY ADV. SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY SRI.G.HARIKRISHNAN (TRIPUNITHURA) SRI.MAHESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. RAVEENDRAN PILLAI, COPPER VILLA, CHEMBUMUKKU, VELLIMUTTOM WEST, KAKKANADU VILLAGE. 2. S.R. PROPERTIES, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM WITH ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT SILVER CASTLE, STATUE JUNCTION, KALIKOTTA ROAD, TRIPUNITHURA – 682 301. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER. 3. JINESH P.R., J.J. NIVAS, PALACHUVADU, KAKKANADU P.O. 4. THANKAMANI KUNJAMMA, - DO - - DO - THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sou. P. BHAVADASAN, J --------------------------- W.P.C.No.10577 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T In this writ petition the following reliefs are sought for : “A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate, writ, order or direction directing the Principal Sub judge, Ernakulam to take up and dispose of Ext.P9 and P11 applications on merits after affording sufficient opportunities to the plaintiffs to submit all the materials and after hearing them also. A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing that the orders dated 6.3.2010 passed in I.A.Nos.3815/09 and 9299/09 in O.S.439/09, Sub Court, Ernakulam shall kept in abeyance till Exhibits P9 and P10 are heard and finally dispose off.” 2. The petitioner is the second plaintiff in O.S.439/09 before the Sub Court, Ernakulam. Suit was for fixation of WPC.10577/10 2 boundary. According to the petitioner, the first respondent trespassed into his property and therefore, he filed this suit. After obtaining an order of interim injunction on Ext.P1, a Commission was taken out and the commission report was produced and marked as Ext.P2. In the interim application, the respondents filed objections. It is pointed out that taking advantage of the long posting of the case to 3.2.2010 the respondents tried to trespass into the property and put up a compound wall. A fresh application was filed by the petitioner seeking injunction restraining trespass into his property vide I.A.9299/09, copy of which is produced as Ext.P4. They also filed I.A.9298/09 to advance posting of the case to an immediate date for hearing. It is pointed out that since no orders were passed, the petitioners were constrained to file application before the vacation court. Vacation court considering the nature of the suit, passed Ext.P5 order. After vacation, a counter affidavit has been filed in the interim application. They also filed a petition to advance hearing I.A.9299/09. The said application was WPC.10577/10 3 posted to 20.05.2010. Second respondent filed further application advancing I.A.9299/09 to the nearest possible date as I.A.1432/10. Copy of the I.A. is produced as Ext.P8. The case is posted to 27.2.2010. On 27.2.2010 advanced I.A.9299/10 and posted to 6.3.2010 for passing orders. Surprisingly, it is found that on 6.3.2010 'A' Diary:- ”I.A.9299/09, I.A. Dismissed”. Petitioner, since he was not heard on the said application, filed three petitions. I.A.2235/10 to recall orders passed on 6.3.2010, I.A.2234/10 to keep the order in abeyance. Copy of I.A.2234/10 is produced and marked as Ext.P10. The petitioner says that the case was adjourned to 25.3.2010. On 25.3.2010 the date to which case was advanced, without hearing the plaintiff on different I.As filed for rehearing and recalling, case was posted to 22.5.2010. It is pointed out that this lukewarm attitude of the court enables the respondents to take advantage of the dismissal of the interlocutory application and they are trying to trespass into the property. He therefore pointed out that it is absolutely essential to WPC.10577/10 4 consider the three petitions to recall, rehear and stay of interim order at the earliest so as to redress his grievance. 3. In the nature of orders to be passed, notice to respondents is unnecessary. The anxiety of the petitioner is understandable. The petition ought to have been disposed of at the earliest. The Principle Sub Court, Ernakulam is directed to dispose the I.A.2235/09 and I.A.2234/10 on 31.3.2010 and pass orders thereon and the petitioner shall inform the respondent about the posting of the case on 31.3.2010. Till then the order dated 6.3.2010 shall be kept in abeyance. Sent copy to Sub Court, Ernakulam. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. Sou.