IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2011 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1933 OP(C).No. 1157 of 2011(O) ------------------------- IA 2105/2010 IN OS.92/2009 of SUB COURT, MANJERI .................... PETITIONER (S): ------------------------------ M.P.KUNHAHAMMEDKUTTY, S/O.MUHAMMED KUNHI (LATE), AGED 49 YEARS, SEO GROUP, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI. BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DR.SUPRIYA MENON, W/O.DR.SETHUNATH, PUTHANKOVILAKAM HOUSE, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679329. 2. DR.SREEKUMAR SUKUMAR, SREESAILAM HOUSE, PATHIYARAKKARA, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673111. 3. INDU SREEKUMAR, W/O.DR.SREEKUMAR SUKUMAR, SREESAILAM HOUSE, PATHIYARAKKARA, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673111. 4. M.P.RAJAGOPAL, S/O.LATE KRISHNAN NAIR, PUTHANKOVILAKAM, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679329. 5. GEETHA RAJAGOPAL, W/O.RAJAGOPAL, PUTHANKOVILAKAM, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679329. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MK P.BHAVADASAN, J. ---------------------------- O.P(C).No. 1157 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT The limited prayer in this original petition is for a direction to the Sub Court, Manjeri to dispose of I.A.No.2105/2010 in O.S.No.92/2009 filed by the petitioner seeking for appointment of the commissioner. 2. Petitioner instituted O.S.No.92/2009 which is one for recovery of money with future interest. The copy of the plaint is Ext.P1. In the said suit an I.A. was filed, for attaching the movable and immovable properties described in the schedule and an order of attachment was passed in favour of the plaintiff. The petitioner would say that when the defendants made attempts to remove movable properties, the petitioner had filed I.A.No.1953/2010, before the Court for the issuance of an Advocate Commissioner, however, the said application was dismissed by the Sub Court, on the ground that the suit is one for money and no necessity for issuing an Advocate Commissioner. 3. The petitioner had filed I.A.No.2105/2010 for the issuance of an advocate Commissioner to verify as to whether the movable property which were under the orders of attachment, were removed by the defendants. The said I.A. was heard and posted for orders repeatedly and no orders have been passed. O.P(C).No. 1157 of 2011 2 4. In the nature of the order that is proposed to be passed, notice to the respondents is unnecessary. In view of the fact that the I.A. is pending for a long time, there will be a direction to the Sub Court, Manjeri to take up I.A. 2105/10 in O.S. 92/2009 and dispose it of as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Send a copy forthwith. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. ln