IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2011 / 21ST SRAVANA 1933 OP(C).No. 2224 of 2011(O) ------------------------- OS.235/2009 of SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA AS NO.78/2011 OF ADD.DISTRICT COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER ------------------------------ ELDHO, S/O.SLEEBA, CHEMMALA HOUSE, MALAYIDAMTHURUTH KARA, KIZHAKKAMBALAM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- MANUAL, S/O.JACOB, PEECHAPPILLIL HOUSE, THEKKEPUNNAMATTOM KARA, KADAVOOR VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK-685051. BY ADV. SHRI T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(C) NO.2224/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 – TRUE COPY OF COMMON JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.4486/2010 DATED 17/09/2010 EXT.P2 – TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 14.10.2010 OF STATE FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORY THIRUVANANTHAPURAM EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN RP NO.996/2010 IN WP(C) NO.4486/2010 DATED 9.11.2010 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 3.12.2010 IN SLP NO.34157/2010 OF THE SUPREME COURT EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA NO.1606/2010 IN OS NO.235/2009 OF SUB JUDGE, MUVATTUPUZHA DATED 20.10.2010 EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE DECREETAL PORTION OF THE JUDGMENT IN OS 235/2009 DATED 7.6.2011 OF SUB JUDGE, MUVATTUPUZHA EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL IN AS NO.78/2011 ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF IA NO.704/2011 IN OS 235/2009 OF SUB COURT,MUVATTUPUZHA DATED 8.6.2011 EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN IA NO.704/2011 IN OS 235/2009 OF SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA. //TRUE COPY// THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.2224 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of August, 2011. JUDGMENT The dispute concerns running of a metal crusher unit between its owner and the alleged licensee. This Court by judgment dated September 17, 2010 in W.P.(C) Nos.4486 and 21130 of 2010 permitted the respondent to run the metal crusher subject to certain terms and conditions. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the suit is decreed in favour of petitioner and there is a decree for prohibitory injunction restraining respondent from causing obstruction to the petitioner running the metal crusher. It is also submitted by learned counsel that pursuant to that judgment and decree, petitioner has preferred an application before learned Sub Judge to direct respondent handover possession of the metal crusher to the petitioner but, that application has not so far been disposed of. Learned counsel for respondents submitted that judgment and decree of learned Sub Judge is under challenge and the appeal is pending before learned Additional District Judge, Muvattupuzha. It is submitted that respondent has filed application for stay of operation of judgment and decree under challenge which also is pending consideration. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel on both sides that parties have entered appearance in the appeal and that the appeal itself could be disposed of OP(C) No.2224/2011 2 at the earliest. Having heard learned counsel on both sides it appears to me that the appropriate course is to direct learned Additional District Judge, Muvattupuzha to dispose of A.S.No.78 of 2011 (of the District Court, Ernakulam transferred to the court of learned Additional District Judge, Muvattupuzha) as early as possible, at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Resultantly this Original Petition is disposed of directing learned Additional District Judge, Muvattupuzha to dispose of A.S.No.78 of 2011 transferred to that court from the court of learned District Judge, Ernakulam as early as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment in that court. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks