IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH MARCH 2009 / 15TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 5447 of 2009(O) AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18/07/1998 IN IA 2723/98 IN IA 2334/98 IN OS.1148/1995 of I ADDL.SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM PETITIONER: --------------- ADV.RANI JOY, 28/3227, 1ST CROSS, CHERUPARAMBATH ROAD, KADAVANTHARA, COCHIN-20. BY ADV. SRI.N.D.JOY RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. JESS RAPHEAL, XLI/2597,PAVANATHARA NURSING HOME, KACHERIPADY, ERNAKULAM (EVICTED VIDE RCP NO.37/94 AND CONFIRMED IN CRP. NO.2362/1999(DB), HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 06.07.2000, 2002(2) KLJ-133) PRESENT ADDRESS: DR.JESS RAPHEAL, C/O.LATE ANNIE RAPHEAL, PAVANATHARA HOUSE, (RENTED HOUSE AS PER STATEMENT OF DR.JESS RAPHEAL IN AFFIDAVIT) BEHIND LOURDE HOSPITAL, PACHALAM, ERNAKULAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.JOHN K.GEORGE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) NO. 5447 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 6th March, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the second plaintiff in O.S.No.1148 of 1995, on the file of the I Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam. The suit was filed for specific performance of an agreement to sell. Though the suit was filed in 1995, even after thirteen years, the suit is not disposed of. The reasons for the delay in disposal cannot be attributed to the Court. It can only be attributed to the parties fighting the litigation with tooth and nail at every stage and taking the matter up to the High Court at every conceivable stage. 2. The Writ Petition is filed for a direction to the court below to dispose of I.A.No.1062 of 2009 filed by the petitioner under Section 340 read with Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In I.A.No.1062 of 2009, the petitioner prayed that the court below to make a complaint against the first respondent and additional sixth respondent, to strike out the defence including the amended written statement, to handover possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiffs and to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. 3. At an earlier stage, the plaintiffs had filed an application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That application was W.P.(C) NO.5447 of 2009 :: 2 :: dismissed by the trial court. It was challenged in appeal. The matter was remanded. Thereafter, the trial court dismissed the application. The matter was carried in appeal again. The appellate court confirmed the order of the trial court. Now the petitioner has filed Criminal Miscellaneous Case challenging that order and it is pending. Prayer No.1 in the application filed by the petitioner now (I.A.No.1062 of 2009) is the same prayer as was made earlier and which was rejected earlier and which is pending in Crl.M.C. before this Court. Therefore, I am not inclined to allow the prayer made by the petitioner to direct the court below to dispose of I.A.No.1062 of 2009. 4. It would appear that in a Contempt Case filed by the first plaintiff, a report was called for by this Court as to why the suit was not disposed of even after the lapse of 13 years. The suit is now listed for trial. 5. The petitioner submits that all throughout the petitioner and her husband were appearing in person. In view of the peculiar facts of the case, the petitioner submits that she has made arrangements to engage a lawyer to appear for her and her husband in the case. It is necessary for the counsel to get ready with the case for trial. The petitioner, therefore, made a last request to grant ten days' time to get ready for trial of the W.P.(C) NO.5447 of 2009 :: 3 :: case . It is submitted that the case is now posted to 6.3.2009 for trial in the list and most likely, the court will not adjourn the case. 6. Taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the case, though I am not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition for the reliefs prayed for, I am inclined to accept the request made by the petitioner for ten days' time to get ready for trial of the case. The trial court shall adjourn the trial of the suit for a period of ten days from today and fix a date convenient to the Court for trial of the suit in the list. It is agreed by the parties that they will co-operate with the trial court for the trial and disposal of the suit and that no unnecessary applications will be filed for adjournment of the case. The petitioner submitted that the plaintiffs may be permitted to adduce oral evidence in the case. This submission was made on the basis of the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner's husband was examined long back and his chief examination was over. Even if it is so, I am of the view that the petitioner or her husband or both, if they wish to adduce evidence, may be permitted to do so. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/