IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 31714 of 2008(A)
1. VALLUVANATTUDAYA AYIRANAZHI KOVILAKATH
... Petitioner
Vs
1. M.C.CHERIYAN, S/O.M.C.CHANDY,
... Respondent
2. M.C.MATHEW, S/O.M.C.CHANDY, SULTHAN
3. M.C.THAMBI, S/O.M.C.CHANDY, SULTHAN
4. MRS.ELIZABETH CHERIYAN,
5. MRS.M.C.GEORGE, W/O.LATE M.C.GEORGE,
6. M.C.CHANDI @ BABU, S/O.LATE M.C.GEORGE,
7. MEERA POTHEN, W/O.LATE M.C.POTHEN,
8. SAJAY, S/O.LATE M.C.POTHEN, SULTHAN
9. SHANAS, D/O.LATE M.C.POTHEN, SULTHAN
10. SHARAN, D/O.LATE M.C.POTHEN, SULTHAN
11. SHAREENA, D/O.LATE M.C.POTHEN,
12. SARASU POTHEN, SULTHAN BUNGLOW,
13. M.C.GEORGE, SULTHAN BUNGLOW,
14. OMANA SAMUEL, SULTHAN BUNGLOW,
15. RAMANI SASI, SULTHAN BUNGLOW,
16. AMMINI IYPE, SULTHAN BUNGLOW,
17. AMMU MATHEW, SULTHAN BUNGLOW,
18. P.P.ABDULLA, S/O.HAMZA HAJI,
19. T.C.KOYAKUTTY THANGAL,
For Petitioner :SRI.SAJU.S.A
For Respondent :SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :04/11/2008
O R D E R
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
------------------------------
W.P(c) No. 31714 of 2008
------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of November, 2008
JUDGMENT
Heard counsel on both sides.
2. Petitioner is one of the decree holders in O.S. No.16 of
1976, O.S. No.17 of 1976 and O.S. No.18 of 1976 on the file of Sub
Court, Manjeri. Decrees were passed in favour of the plaintiff for
recovery of possession of the suit properties. It is stated that when the
Amin attempted to deliver the property, he was physically obstructed
by certain persons, according to petitioner at the instance of the
judgment debtors who suffered the decrees. Decree holders filed an
application to direct the Amine to effect the delivery with police
assistance. That request was disallowed. Decree holder challenged that
order in W.P(c) No.32981 of 2006. A learned single judge of this court
as per Exhibit P1, judgment dated 25/03/2008 disposed of the writ
petition directing paper publication to be effected so that, anybody
who wanted to object to the delivery could do so. Leaned Single Judge
also directed that considering the years that have passed since
W.P(c) No. 31714/ 2008
2
litigation commenced, the executing court will expedite the matter.
Complaint of petitioner is that in spite of that direction, court below as
per order dated 4-04-2008 granted time to the objectors to produce
documents on which they claimed right. Petitioner/decree holder filed
application for review of that order which the learned Sub Judge as per
Exhibit P5, order dated 17-09-2008 dismissed. It is in challenge of that
the petitioner/decree holder has come to this court in this proceeding
praying that Exhibit P5, order be quashed and also for a direction for
expeditious disposal of the claim/objection. Counsel for petitioner
submits that the matter is pending without adjudication for a long.
Counsel for respondents contend that in view of the decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai [2003
(3)K.L.T. 490] there is no scope for entertaining this writ petition. It
is also contended by the learned counsel that Exhibit P5 order cannot
be challenged since no sufficient ground for review as provided in
Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure was made out.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that he is not now
challenging Exhibit P5 order. Hence that part of the contention of the
W.P(c) No. 31714/ 2008
3
respondents need not be gone into.
4. I am not persuaded to think that the decision relied on by
the learned counsel for respondents prevented this court from directing
the court below to dispose of the claim/objection as the case may be, as
expeditiously as possible. It is true that considering the nature of
claim/objection and the enquiry to that may be required to be made on
that it may not be feasible to direct time bound disposal. However,
considering the facts and circumstances of the case it is only
appropriate to direct the learned Sub Judge to dispose of the
claim/objection as the case may be at the earliest. I find that such a
direction was issued by the learned single judge of this court also in
Exhibit P1, judgment. Hence the learned Sub Judge is directed to
comply with the direction for earlier disposal contained in Exhibit P1
judgment.
With the above direction this writ petition is dismissed.
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE
scm