IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2008 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 9465 of 2008(B) ------------------------- RCP.113/2005 of RENT CONTROLLER (MUNSIFF), KOZHIKODE-I .................... PETITIONER: ------------ P.REMADEVI, W/O.MOHANDAS RADHAKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT 'REMYA', KOZHIPURAM COMPOUND, COTTON MILL ROAD, THIRUVANNUR, CALICUT-24 IN PANNIYANKARA AMSOM AND DESOM OF KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. MALAYALA CHALACHITHRA KANIKAL(MACKAL) A SOCIETY REG.UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE SOCIETIES REG. ACT, 1860 & HAVING ITS OFFICE SITUATED AT DOOR NO.10/1023, S.M.STREET, CALICUT - 673 001 IN NAGARAM AMSOM & DESOM OF KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKOD & REP. BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY BONNY AUSTIN. 2. C.E.CHAKKUNNY, S/O.LATE ELIAS, RESIDING AT DOOR NO.17/115-A, 'ELIAS GEORGE' IN KASABA AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N. RAVINDRAN, JJ. --------------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.9465 OF 2008-B -------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of March, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J: The petitioner herein is the petitioner in E.P.No.222/2007 in R.C.P.No.113/2005 on the file of the Rent Controller (Munsiff), Kozhikode-I. The R.C.P was allowed by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the appellate authority. The revision attempted against the order of the appellate authority was dismissed by this Court by Ext.P1 order granting the tenant six months' time to vacate the premises. After the said period is over, when the petitioner moved for execution, E.A.No.154/2008 has been filed by the 1st respondent herein contending that the order of eviction cannot be executed as the said organisation is in possession of a portion of the building. The petitioner submits, the 1st respondent has been set up by the 2nd respondent and he is also the President of the 1st respondent. So, it is a clever move to delay the execution, it is pointed out. E.A.No.154/2008, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P4, was filed on 10.3.2008. It was posted to 17.3.2008 and thereafter to 25.3.2008. While so, this writ petition WPC.NO.9465/2008 . 2 is filed seeking a direction to the Rent Controller (Munsiff), Kozhikode-I, to dispose of Ext.P4 application expeditiously before closure of the courts for summer vacation,2008. 2. We heard Sri.Jayakumar, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner. We notice that the execution application was filed only on 10.3.2008. It is too early to accuse the learned Munsiff of any default or delay in disposing the application. Before disposing of that application, the learned Munsiff has to follow the due procedure provided under law. Therefore, it is not proper for us to interfere and direct the learned Munsiff to dispose of the application within a time frame. Further, there may be other cases and applications, which require urgent attention of the learned Munsiff. For the reason that the petitioner could afford to approach this Court, we cannot issue any order to hear her petition out of turn. She has to wait in the queue. As noticed earlier, the approach to this Court is premature also. It is not proper for us to interfere with the roaster of the learned Munsiff. The court below should be conceded freedom to adjust its work according to the priority of cases, having regard to the pendency of cases before it. WPC.NO.9465/2008 . 3 Therefore, this wit petition fails and it is dismissed. But this will not affect the right of the petitioner to move the learned Munsiff for early hearing of the above execution application. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. cl