IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2010 / 26TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 25911 of 2010(O) -------------------------- CMA.23/2010 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR OS.243/2008 of MUNSIFF COURT,CHAVAKKAD .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.I. DAVI, S/O. T.I.ITOOP, NOW RESIDING AT DAR VILLA, 6TH GATE, CALICUT-11 KOZHIKODE DIST. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP ANTONY CHACKO SRI.P.M.SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- SUNIL KUMAR, S/O. KARANAMKOTT GOPALAN THOZHIYUR DESOM, POOKKODE AMSOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, TRICHUR DIST-680506. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH,J -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO. 25911 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 17th day of August, 2010. JUDGMENT Petitioner is plaintiff in O.S.No.243/2008 of the court of learned Munsiff, Chavakkad. That suit is filed by petitioner against respondent seeking eviction of the latter pursuant to termination of the license arrangement petitioner claims to have had with the respondent concerning four shop rooms described in the plaint schedule. During pendency of the suit on the request of an expert commissioner inspected the shop rooms and submitted report. That report, according to the petitioner indicates that shop rooms are in a very bad condition and required immediate repair or strengthening. Petitioner filed Ext.P10, application to appoint expert commissioner to construct wall of the building with laterite stone that application allowed by Ext.P11, order which respondent has challenged in C.M.A.No.25/2010 before learned Additional District Judge, Thrissur. Learned Addl. Judge has on Ext.P15, application granted stay of execution of Ext.P11 order until further orders as per Ext.P14 order. That order is under challenge in this writ petition. Learned counsel states that building is in such a W.P.(C).NO. 25911 OF 2010 2 condition that it is likely to fall down unless necessary repairs as requested in Ext.P10 and allowed by Ext.P11 order is carried out immediately. Now that the appellate court is yet to decide on correctness of Ext.P11, order as the appeal has been taken on file, proper course is to dispose of the C.M. appeal at the earliest. Learned counsel tells me that of preliminary steps in the C.M. appeal are over except probably receipt of trial court records (if it is necessary) for disposal of the C.M. appeal. Having regard to the urgency stated by the learned counsel, learned Addl. District Judge, Thrissur is directed to dispose of C.M.A.No.25/2010 as early as possible at any rate within two months from this day. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly, THOMAS P JOSEPH,JUDGE. pm