IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2009 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 32715 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.11/2008 of SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.C.GEORGE, PEACE VILLA, MANKAMKUZHY, VETTIYAR VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.R.KRISHNA RAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- SAJI JOHN,JOHNSON COTTAGE, KOCHALUMMOODU, KALLIMEL MURI, MAVELIKKARA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.32715 OF 2009 -------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of December 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed seeking the following relief. i) Direct the Sub Court, Mavelikara, to dispose of I.ANo.118/2009 in O.S No.111/2008 forthwith by the issue of appropriate writ or order or direction. 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S No.111 of 2008 on the file of the Sub Court, Mavelikara. Suit is for money, and the respondent is the defendant. Suit claim was based on the breach of contract alleged to have been committed by the defendant who was engaged by the plaintiff for constructing a building in the plaint schedule property. Plaintiff claimed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards damages sustained on account of the breach committed by the defendant. Resisting the suit claim the defendant filed a written statement in which traversing the allegations raised W.P.(C).No.32715 OF 2009 Page numbers in the plaint a counter claim was also raised seeking recovery of Rs.8,66,607/- as amount due from the plaintiff towards part performance of the contract in the construction of the building. Ext.P1 is the copy of the plaint and Ext.P4 is the copy of the written statement. Several commissions had been taken to assess the nature of the work carried out for the construction of the building with the assistance of the experts at the instance of the plaintiff and also the defendant. In fact, the plaintiff had taken two commissions and the defendant, two other commissions, some with the assistance of an Assistant Engineer and the rest with the assistance of an Assistant Executive Engineer. Exts.P3, P6, P8 and P10 are the reports filed by the advocate commissioner. Ext.P10 is the last report. Plaintiff had some serious objections over Ext.P10 report which were raised by him in his Ext.P12 objection. Plaintiff sought for setting aside that report or its remission for collecting further details deputing a fresh commission. Ext.P11 is that application. Sole relief canvassed in the present petition at the time of hearing by the learned counsel for the petitioner is the issue W.P.(C).No.32715 OF 2009 Page numbers of a writ/direction/order to the court below for an expeditious disposal of Ext.P11 application. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondent is necessary and hence it is dispensed with. Perusing the exhibits tendered with the writ petition and taking note of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I called for a report from the learned Sub Judge to examine whether an expeditious trial of the suit to give a quietus to the controversy is possible. The learned Sub Judge has reported that the cases up to 2006, that too of considerable number have been targeted for trial, and cases have been included in the special list up to February 2010. Sufficient time is requested by the learned Sub Judge for disposal of the suit. Considering the report of the learned Sub Judge with reference to the grievance espoused by the petitioner, I find a direction can be issued to the court below to dispose the suit within a span of ten months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this judgment. Whatever objections the petitioner has against the W.P.(C).No.32715 OF 2009 Page numbers commission report can be canvassed at the trial of the suit. In case the court finds that any of the objections so canvassed is sustainable, needless to point out, it has to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The court below shall make every endeavor to dispose the suit within the time limit as fixed above. Writ petition is disposed as indicated above. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv