High Court Kerala High Court

Kumaran Asary vs Parukutty on 26 August, 2009

Kerala High Court
Kumaran Asary vs Parukutty on 26 August, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 22657 of 2009(O)


1. KUMARAN ASARY, AGED 68 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. PARUKUTTY, W/O.RAGHAVAN,
                       ...       Respondent

2. RAGHAVAN, AGED 76 YEARS,

3. SIVADASAN PILLAI, AGED 47 YEARS,

4. MR.M.N.HARIDASAN,

5. MR.HASHIM,

6. MR.THANKACHAN,

7. MR.CHELLAPPAN,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SYAM J SAM

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN

 Dated :26/08/2009

 O R D E R
                    S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
                   -----------------------------------
                   W.P.(C).No.22657 of 2009 - O
                    ---------------------------------
              Dated this the 26th day of August, 2009

                              JUDGMENT

The writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“To direct the learned Munsiff Court, Punalur

to dispose of Ext.P2 I.A. within a time frame fixed

by this court.”

2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.320 of 2008 on the

file of the Munsiff Court, Punalur. Suit is one for declaration of a

sale deed as null and void and for consequential injunction. With

the suit, an application moved for interim injunction has not been

taken up for hearing and disposal is the grievance canvassed in

the writ petition seeking issue of orders/directions to the court

below for an expeditious disposal of that application.

3. A report was called from the learned Munsiff as to

whether there is any hurdle for disposing that application. Report

has been received from the learned Munsiff which would indicate

that the interlocutory application could not be taken up in view of

the pressure of other work

4. Having regard to the nature of the facts and

circumstances presented and the submissions made by the

W.P.(C).No.22657 of 2009 – O

2

counsel for the petitioner, I find no notice to the respondents is

necessary, and hence it is dispensed with. I heard the learned

counsel for the petitioner.

5. Perusing the report submitted by the learned Munsiff I

find it is far from satisfactory. Whatever be the pressure of the

work canvassed as a reason for nondisposal of the interlocutory

application when the court had been requested to hear and

dispose it by way of an advance petition, serious efforts should

have been made for disposal of that petition. The learned Munsiff

is directed to hear and dispose of I.A.No.1725 of 2008 within a

period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment.

Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is closed.

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,
JUDGE.

bkn/-