IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 2949 of 2010(O) ------------------------- O.S NOS. 292/09 & 139/2008 of SUB COURT,ATTINGAL .................... PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. DAMAYANTHI, W/O.NARAYANAN, KUZHIVILA VEEDU, KUZHIVILAM DESOM, KUZHIVILAM VILLAGE, CHIRAYIN KEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SATHYASEELAN, S/O..NARAYANAN, KUZHIVILA VEEDU, KUZHIVILAM DESOM, KUZHIVILAM VILLAGE, CHIRAYIN KEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT: --------------- MUHAMMED KUNJU, S/O.MEERA SAHIB, M.K.MANZIL, MUDAPURAM P.O, KUZHIVILAM DESOM, KUZHIVILAM VILLAGE, CHIRAYIN KEEZHU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). No. 2949 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of March, 2010. JUDGMENT The writ petitioners are defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. Nos. 139 of 2008 and 292 of 2009 on the file of the Sub Court, Attingal. The respondent herein is the sole plaintiff in the aforesaid suits. The 1st petitioner/1st defendant is stated to be 80 years old and suffering from several ailments and the 2nd petitioner/2nd defendant who is the son of the 1st petitioner, is stated to be 60 years old and also suffering from various ailments in addition to financial difficulties. The grievance of the petitioners is that on account of the pendency of the two suits which have been ordered to be jointly tried, the petitioners are not able to sell their properties and are disabled from peacefully enjoying the properties during their life time. They, therefore, pray for an early disposal of the two suits. 2. Having regard to the fact that the petitioners are W.P.(C) No. 2949/2010 : 2 : senior citizens who are entitled to have their case taken out of turn, this writ petition is disposed of directing the Sub Court, Attingal to dispose of the two suits at the earliest and at any rate within nine months of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I.A. No. 2287 of 2009 in O.S. No. 292 of 2008 shall be disposed of expeditiously and at any rate within two weeks of receipt of this judgment. Dated this the 1st day of March, 2010. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv W.P.(C) No. 2949/2010 : 3 : V. RAMKUMAR , J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). No. 2949 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of February, 2010. The Registrar (Subordinate Judiciary) to note the following:- In the remarks dated 02.02.2010 submitted by Shri. Felix Mary Das, Sub Judge, Attingal, there is a sentence which reads as follows:- “At this juncture, I may report that the pendency of cases in this court is very high (nearly 3000 cases) and therefore an interlocutory application cannot be heard unless the parties insist for the same.” Is not the learned Subordinate Judge aware of the statutory time limit and insistence for disposal of interlocutory applications for temporary injunction and does he expect the High Court to understand that even the final W.P.(C) No. 2949/2010 : 4 : disposal of interlocutory applications will be made only if the parties insist for the same? The registry shall obtain the explanation from the Sub Judge. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.