IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 4TH JULY 2011 / 13TH ASHADHA 1933 OP(C).No. 2109 of 2011(O) ------------------------------------- OS.339/2010 OF MUNSIFF COURT, PARAPPANANGADI .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- ASHRAF, S/O. THACHAPARAMBAN ALASSAN HAJI, THACHAPARAMBAN HOUSE, VALIYORA AMSOM DESOM, P.O. VENGARA-676 304, TIRURANGADI TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER, SRI.SUMODH MADHAVAN NAIR. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. PATHUMMU, D/O. THACHAPARAMBAN ALASSAN HAJI & W/O. KATTIL ABDURAHIMAN, VALIYORA AMSOM DESOM, VALIYORA. P.O., 676 304, PUTHANANGADI, TIRURANGADI TALUK. 2. ABDUL KADER, S/O. THACHAPARAMBAN ALASSAN HAJI, THACHAPARAMBAN HOUSE, VALIYORA AMSOM DESOM, P.O. VENGARA-676 304, TIRURANGADI TALUK. 3. ABDUL MAJEED, S/O. -DO -DO- 4. ALAVIKAUTTY, S/O. -DO -DO- -DO -DO-. BY THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/07/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs OP(C).No. 2109 of 2011(O) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO.339 OF 2010 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, PARAPPANANGADI DATED 13/12/2010. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE APPLICATION TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 24/05/2011 IN O.S. NO.339 OF 2010 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, PARAPPANANGADI. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE I.A. NO.771/2011 IN O.S. NO.339/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, PARAPPANANGADI. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE DOCKET ORDER DATED 24/05/2011 IN I.A. NO.771 OF 2011 IN O.S. NO.339/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, PARAPPANANGADI. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24/05/2011 IN O.S. NO.339/2010 PASSED BY MUNSIFF'S COURT, PARAPPANANGADI. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER AS I.A. NO.845/2011 DATED 26/05/2011 IN O.S. NO.339/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, PARAPPANANGADI. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.2109 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of July, 2011. JUDGMENT The second plaintiff in O.S.No.339 of 2010 of the court of learned Munsiff, Parappanangadi is the petitioner before me. That is a suit for partition filed by petitioner and others. First respondent filed written statement in the suit with an application to condone the delay. Learned Munsiff issued summons to respondents 2 to 4 which were returned with the endorsement 'went abroad'. On 10.03.2011 learned Munsiff directed petitioner and others to take steps against respondents 2 to 4 by substituted service and posted the case on 24.05.2011. On 23.05.2011 petitioner and other plaintiffs filed I.A.No.771 of 2011 under Order V Rule 20(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”) for substituted service by publishing notice in a vernacular daily. Draft publication was also produced along with I.A.No.771 of 2011 for approval of learned Munsiff. Learned Munsiff dismissed I.A.No.771 of 2011 on 24.05.2011 as belated and that was followed by a dismissal of suit by Ext.P5, judgment. The prayer in this petition is to set aside Ext.P4, order on I.A.No.771 of 2011. Learned counsel submits that there was no laches on the part of petitioner and other plaintiffs in that on 24.05.2011 they filed I.A.No.771 of 2011 with prayer as aforesaid along with draft publication but, that application was dismissed by Ext.P4, order. OP(C) No.2109/2011 2 2. No doubt, undue delay in disposal of cases is something which the courts should be concerned about. But unnecessary haste in disposal of cases would affect dispensation of justice. It is well to remember that courts are respected not for the technical disposals and its quantity but for administering justice. One should also bear in mind that justice hurried is justice buried. Technical disposal of the suits is of no use as it is likely to go back to the trial court itself. Petitioner and other plaintiffs had taken steps for substituted service of notice. Learned Munsiff ought to have considered the application if at all it is assumed that there was some delay in filing it. But, I am not interfering with Ext.P4, order since it has culminated in Ext.P5, judgment the proper course open to the petitioner is to challenge the judgment and decree in appeal and in that appeal, challenge correctness of Ext.P4, order in view of Section 105 of the Code. Hence leaving petitioner and other plaintiffs to that remedy I am inclined to dispose of this Original Petition. Resultantly this Original Petition is disposed of without prejudice to the right of petitioner and other plaintiffs to challenge the judgment and decree in appeal and in that appeal, challenge correctness of Ext.P4, order. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks