IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2009 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 10602 of 2009(O) OS.41/1998 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF'S COURT-I, KOZHIKODE PETITIONER: --------------- M.K.UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O.JANAKI AMMA, AGED 62 YEARS, EDAKKAD AMSOM, DESOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON RESPONDENT: --------------- THAYYIL PANKAJAVALLY, W/O.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, KARKKAYIL HOUSE, P.O.EDAKKAD, WEST HILL, KOZHIKODE. ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) NO. 10602 OF 2009 O ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 6th April, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.41 of 1998, on the file of the Court of the Munsiff of Kozhikode. Originally the suit was for permanent prohibitory injunction. Subsequently, the suit was amended for recovery of possession. The amendment was allowed only in January, 2008. 2. The trial court decreed the suit. According to the petitioner, it was an exparte decree, but, according to the respondent, it was not. An appeal was filed against the decree. The appellate court set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and directed the trial court to dispose of the suit afresh. The trial court was directed to dispose of the suit by the end of October, 2008. 3. The petitioner/defendant filed applications for production of large number of documents and witnesses. The trial court dismissed those applications. W.P.(C) No.30309 of 2008 was filed by the petitioner, which was allowed as per Ext.P1 judgment dated 4.11.2008. The applications were allowed on payment of costs of Rs.2,000/-. W.P.(C) NO.10602 OF 2009 :: 2 :: 4. Thereafter, the suit was posted on different dates. It is stated that when the trial was going on, the respondent/plaintiff sought adjournment on the ground that the plaintiff's husband was to retire from service. On that ground, the suit was adjourned. Later, the petitioner/defendant filed an application for removal of the case from the special list on the ground that he had a stroke and he was suffering from hyper tension. He had to seek treatment in Baby Memorial Hospital, Kozhikode. The prayer for adjournment was rejected by the court below as per Ext.P5 order, which is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 5. The Writ Petition was admitted on 2.4.2009 and stay was granted. 6. The suit was instituted in the year 1998. For some reason or other, the suit is not disposed of so far. From the facts stated by the counsel appearing for the parties, it is clear that the parties are not very keen on getting the suit disposed of immediately. Both parties sought for adjournments. Now it becomes the duty of the Court to dispose of the suit one way or the other. 7. Since the petitioner sought for adjournment on the ground that W.P.(C) NO.10602 OF 2009 :: 3 :: he was not keeping well and that he had heart ailment, I do not think that the court below should have refused to remove the case from the list. Anyhow, the case is pending for the last more than ten years. Adjournment of the case for one or two months would not make any substantial change in the situation. Therefore, I set aside Ext.P5 order. The trial court shall list the case for trial in the special list after the summer holidays. It is made clear that the parties shall not be allowed to seek unnecessary adjournments. The parties undertake that they will co- operate with the court for an early disposal of the case. This undertaking is recorded. The court below shall dispose of the suit expeditiously. The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/