IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 OP(C).No. 916 of 2010(O) ----------------------------------- OS.85/2008 of SUB COURT, VADAKARA .................... PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF ------------------------------------- M.V.PREMAN, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.CHATHU, KAILAS HOUS,E VEYUR AMSOM DESOM, KOILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.P.R.SREEJITH SRI.M.PROMODH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): DEFENDANTS ---------------------------------------------- 1. U.P.LEELA, W/O. CHATHU, AGED 60 YEARS, MARAM VEETIL, PUDUPPANAM AMSOM DESOM, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. VADAKARA P.O., PIN- 673 101 2. GANESHAN, S/O. CHATHU, AGED 45 YEARS, MARAM VEETIL, PUDUPPANAM AMSOM DESOM, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. VADAKKARA.P.O.,PIN- 673 101. 3. REETHA W/O. RAGHAVAN, AGED 40 YEARS, POOVULLATHIL, MAMUNDA AMSOM DESOM, KUTTOTH, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. VADAKARA.P.O., PIN- 673 101 4. REENA, W/O. DINESHAN, AGED 36 YEARS, RAMATHUTHAZHE HOUSE, PUDUPPANAM AMSOM DESOM, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. VADAKARA.P.O., PIN- 673 101. 5. REEJA, W/O.SUNIL KUMAR, AGED 36 YEARS, EDATHIL HOUSE, MANIYUR AMSOM DESOM, PAYYOOLI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. PAYYOOLI .P.O., PIN- 673 523. 6. REESHA, W/O. RAJEEVAN, AGED 34 YEARS, ASSARI KANDIYIL HOUSE, CHORODU AMSOM DESOM, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. VADAKARA .P.O., PIN- 673 101. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P(C).No.916 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 30th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT Plaintiff in O.S.No.85 of 2008 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Vatakara is the petitioner before me seeking an early disposal of the suit for partition. According to the petitioner, there is no serious contention raised by the respondent in the suit except a plea that there was an oral concession from petitioner to relinquish his share in the property. It is contended by learned counsel that even issues are not so far framed. 2. Without ascertaining the volume of work of the court concerned and priority for disposal of old cases I do not consider it necessary or proper to issue direction for early disposal but, petitioner can bring to the notice of the court below nature of contentions raised by the respondents and request for early disposal of the suit. This petition is closed with the above observation. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-