IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2009 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 30474 of 2009(O) ------------------------------------ O.S. NI.897/2009 OF MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM .... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ A.SREEDHARAN S/O.LATE AYYAN, MOHANAVILASOM, PANGAPPARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS.MR.K.RAJESH KANNAN MR.HARIKUMAR.S. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SREEKARYAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SREEKARYAM PANCHAYATH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.30474 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.897 of 2009 on the file of the 2nd Additional Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Suit is one for declaration of title of the plaintiff over plaint B schedule property and also that the order of assignment made by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant over that property is null and void. A decree of injunction is also sought against defendants in the suit. First defendant is the State and second defendant, a local authority. The grievance espoused by the plaintiff is that with the suit he had moved an application for interim injunction identical to the relief sought for in the suit, but, despite considerable lapse of time that petition has not been disposed of by the court below. He has therefore filed this writ petition seeking issue of writ, order or direction to the court below to hear and dispose of that interlocutory application (Ext.P5) by the court below expeditiously, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. W.P.(C).No.30474 of 2009 - O 2 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff. Learned Government Pleader takes notice for the first defendant. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the second respondent, local authority, is necessary and it is dispensed with. 3. At the time of hearing learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Ext.P5 application was heard by the court below, but, orders have not been pronounced even after considerable time. It is also submitted that both the defendants have also filed written statement to the suit claim. I direct the court below to pass appropriate orders on Ext.P5 application, if it had been already heard, within a span of two weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this judgment, and in case the application is not heard till date, then to hear and dispose it within six weeks from the date of this judgment. Subject to the above direction, writ petition is closed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-