IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2009 / 14TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 26583 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.45/1998 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT, CHERTHALA .................... PETITIONER: --------------- KUNJIPPENNU PARVATHI, NIKARTHIL, PANAVALLY, CHERTHALA. BY ADV. MR.J.OM PRAKASH RESPONDENT: --------------- PADMANABHAN, ASARIPARAMBIL, THURUTHI BHAGAM MURI, AROOKUTTY, CHERTHALA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.26583 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition has been filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.45 of 1998 on the file of the Principal Munsiff Court, Cherthala. The above suit was one for partition in which a preliminary decree had already been passed in favour of the plaintiff. That decree challenged by the defendant in appeal was confirmed with slight modification. An application moved by the plaintiff/petitioner for passing of the final decree, as early in 2004, after obtaining a report and plan from commissioner for effecting partition by mets and bounds is still pending for consideration before the court, is the grievance canvassed in the writ petition for issuing directions/orders to the court below for expeditious disposal and completion of the final decree proceedings. 2. Having regard to the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner, a report was called from the learned Munsiff where the final decree proceedings are now pending. Report received would show that on the representation made by the W.P.(C).No.26583 of 2009 - O 2 respondent/defendant in the suit that a second appeal has been preferred against the decision rendered in the first appeal, proceedings are not completed. The report is far from satisfactory. Learned Munsiff has found fault with plaintiff for not taking steps for executing the work by the commissioner. Submission made by the counsel and also the report itself reveals that the commissioner has already filed a report and plan and it is pending for consideration before the court. It appears, the learned Munsiff on the representation made by the respondent/defendant that a second appeal has been preferred with a stay petition directed the defendant to file an affidavit and adjourned the case. Admittedly, there was no representation as to entertaining or admitting the second appeal filed in 2004, no stay order produced or communicated, I direct the learned Munsiff to expedite the final decree proceedings and complete the proceedings within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. W.P.(C).No.26583 of 2009 - O 3 Writ petition is disposed of as above. Hand over a copy of the judgment to the counsel for the petitioner and send a copy to the court concerned forthwith. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-