IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2009 / 17TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 18270 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 622/2008 IN OS.31/2006 of SUB COURT, NEDUMANGAD .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- M.RAJKAPOOR, S/O. MOHAMMED SALI, KALAKAUMUDI ROAD, MEDICAL COLLEGE.P.O., TRIVANDRUM. REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER UDAYAKUMAR, S/O.PUSHPANGADAN, AGED 38 YEARS, VILAYIL VEEDU,ROSE NAGAR,SREEKARIYAM, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADVS.MR.V.SURESH, MR.G.SUDHEER. RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------------- GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, S/O. SUKUMARAN NAIR, AGED 50 YEARS, KOCHUKARIKKATHIL VEEDU, MITHRUMALA, VAMANAPURAM VILLAGE AND NOW RESIDING AT TC 33/595, VATTYOORKAVU, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADVS. MR.V.G.ARUN, MR.T.R.HARIKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.18270 OF 2009 (O) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed by the 5th defendant in O.S.No.31/2006 on the file of the Sub Court, Nedumangad. Plaintiff in the suit is the respondent. Suit was one for declaration of title, possession, prohibitory injunction and consequential reliefs. The petitioner/5th defendant, who claims to have obtained title over the suit property, moved an application for interim injunction, which was allowed by the trial court after hearing both sides. Appeal preferred by the respondent/plaintiff was dismissed confirming the order of the injunction. Petitioner/5th defendant thereupon moved an application seeking police aid alleging that the order of injunction is being violated by the respondent/plaintiff. That application was dismissed by the learned Sub Judge. Ext.P16 is the copy of that order. Impeaching the propriety and correctness of Ext.P16 order, the petitioner has filed this writ WPC.18270/09 2 petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the constitution of India. 2. I heard the counsel on both sides. A report was also called for from the court below to ascertain whether the suit is ripe for trial, and if so, the time required for its disposal. From the report, it is seen that steps are pending for service on the legal heirs of one of the defendants who had passed away. Further more, it is reported while disposing the C.M.Appeal, the learned District Judge had already issued a direction fixing the time limit for disposal of the suit, which had already expired and an extension of time was applied by the learned Sub Judge. Having regard to the nature of the reliefs claimed in the suit, and taking note of the contentions advanced by the petitioner/5th defendant, it appears, deputation of a Commission and measurement of suit property may be necessary, if so desired by the respondent/plaintiff, for adjudication of the disputes involved in the suit. That also has to be taken into consideration in fixing the outer limit for disposal of the suit, which alone is pressed into service at this WPC.18270/09 3 stage by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The adjudication of the disputes at the earliest is necessary to give a quietus to the whole issue. The learned Sub Judge shall make every endeavor to give the suit top priority and also take necessary steps to effect service on the proposed legal heirs of the deceased defendant at the earliest, by giving appropriate orders/directions to the plaintiff for such service. Once service is completed, both sides can furnish draft issues to facilitate the court for settling the issues, and, then, after completion of the preliminary steps for trial, the case has to be included in the special list for trial. Having regard to the disputed questions arising for adjudication in the suit, I direct the learned Sub Judge to make every endeavour to dispose the suit before the closing of the courts for the Christmas Vacation, and the time granted by the District Judge for disposal shall stand extended till the above period. If there is any serious impediment in disposing the suit within the time limit fixed as above, it shall be reported to the learned District Judge who has earlier fixed the time limit, and appropriate instructions/directions given by the District Judge shall be WPC.18270/09 4 scrupulously followed by the learned Munsiff for disposal of the suit. The learned counsel for the petitioner wanted this Court to make an observation reserving his right to proceed for alleged violation of the injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC. No reservation need be entertained by the petitioner on that count, since if he is entitled to such a relief under law, this Court need not make any reservation or clarification thereof. Subject to the above observations, this writ petition is closed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. -------------------------------------------------------- CRL.R.P.NO. OF 2006 () --------------------------------------------------------- O R D E R --------------------------------------------------------- 23rd March, 2009