IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2008 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 17992 of 2008(P) -------------------------- AS.11/2008 of SUB COURT,NEYYATTINKARA OS.731/2004 of II ADDL.M.C.,NEYYATTINKARA .................... PETITIONER: ------------ P.R.SYAMALA, 59 YEARS, D/O.PANKAJAKSHY, MANANADIMELE PUTHENVEEDU,KILIKKOTTUKONAM URUTTAMBALAM, MARANALLUR DESOM THUIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA SRI.M.S.KALESH SRI.HARISH GOPINATH SRI.V.VINAY MENON SMT.KVP.JAYALEKSHMY SRI.M.AJAY (IRUMPANAM) SMT.M.C.SHIJIMOL RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. S.R.ANILKUMAR, 38 YEARS, S/O. RAMACHANDRAN, POOJA KILIKOTTUKONAM, VELLAPALIMELE. ANIL NIVAS, PALLICHAL DESOM, PALICHAL VILLAGE 2. SUNILKUMAR, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.RAMACHANDRAN, RESIDING AT ANIL NIVAS NARUVAMMOODU, PALICHAL VILLAGE, NARUVAMMOODU PO., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.17992 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 17th June, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.731 of 2004, on the file of the Munsiff Court, Neyyattinkara. She is the mother of the respondents. First respondent is the plaintiff and second respondent, the second defendant. Pursuant to the preliminary decree, final decree was passed in I.A.No.172(a) of 2008. First respondent filed A.S.No.11/2008 before Sub Court, Neyyattinkara, challenging the final decree. That appeal was filed with a petition (I.A.No.170(a)/2008) to condone the delay of 63 days. Under Ext. P10 order, the delay was condoned on payment of cost of Rs.1000/=. Under Ext.P13 order, learned Sub Judge thereafter granted an order of stay of execution of the final decree till the disposal of the appeal. Exts.P10 and Ext.P13 orders are challenged in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard. W.P.(C) No.17992 of 2008 2 3. On hearing the learned counsel and on going through Exts.P10 and P13 orders, I do not find any illegality or irregularity warranting interference. Under Ext.P10 order, learned Sub Judge has condoned the delay of 63 days, and that too, on payment of cost of Rs.1000/=. When the appeal is admitted, under Ext.P13 order, stay of execution of the decree challenged in the appeal was granted. In such circumstances, there is no reason to interfere with Exts.P10 and P13 orders. The learned counsel appearing for petitioner then submitted that petitioner, mother of first respondent, is prevented from enjoying the property and in such circumstances, there may be a direction to dispose the appeal, as expeditiously as possible. As the appeal is against the final decree, Sub Judge is directed to dispose A.S.No.11 of 2008, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within ten months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj.