IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2010 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 7720 of 2010(O) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SUNILKUMAR, S/O. DAMODARAN NAIR, ANILA BHAVAN, KOLLODU, KULATHUMMAL, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. BY MR. T.KRISHNUNNI, SENIOR ADVOCATE, BY ADV. MR.S.A.SAJU. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. SALIM, S/O. MUHAMMED ISMAIL, SOUFIA MANZIL, KOLLODU, KULATHUMMAL, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. 2. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, S/O. NARAYANA PILLAI, PANAVILAKATHU HOUSE, -DO-..DO... THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P. BHAVADASAN, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) No. 7720 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 15th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT The limited prayer in this writ petition is for a direction to the court below to take up Exts.P3 and P4 applications and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. 2. The suit was instituted by the petitioner for declaration of a right of way by easement of prescription over the plaint C schedule property to the petitioner's property and for consequential injunction. When the case was called, it was represented that the plaintiff is ready for trial. The case was kept aside and the court went on to hear another case. While so, the counsel for the plaintiff went out of the court to answer call of nature. When the case was taken up, it was represented by the defendants' counsel that the counsel for the plaintiff would come shortly and both of W.P.(C) No. 7720/10 2 them are ready. The court below without waiting for the counsel for the plaintiff called the case and dismissed the suit. Immediately thereafter the plaintiff filed Ext.P3 I.A.No.364 of 2010 for restoration of the suit. In the meanwhile, the defendants forcibly blocked the C schedule pathway. Therefore, the plaintiff filed I.A. No. 1060 of 2010 for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to restore the way, which they have blocked, to its original state. A copy of the application is produced as Ext.P4. 3. The only grievance of the petitioner is that delay in disposing of Exts.P3 and P4 application is causing irreparable injury and hardship to him. 4. In the light of the order that is sought to be passed, notice to the respondents is not necessary. 5. The limited prayer of the petitioner is for a direction to the court below to dispose of Exts.P3 and P4 applications expeditiously. There is no reason as to why these applications should be kept pending. 6. Hence, there will be a direction to the court below W.P.(C) No. 7720/10 3 to take up Exts.P3 and P4 applications and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. mn.