IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 7422 of 2009(O)
1. CHANDRAN, S/O.SANKARAN @ SANKU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. VALANCHERRY THODUVIL SUDHAKARAN,
... Respondent
2. SASIDHARAN, S/O.PALATHOTTIL RAVUNNI,
3. USHA, D/O.PALATHOTTIL RAVUNNI,
4. ACHUTHAN, S/O.PALATHOTTIL RAVUNNI,
5. SUBRAMANIAN, S/O.PALATHOTTIL RAVUNNI,
6. CHINNA, KANNANKULANGARA HOUSE,
7. PADMINI, D/O.SANKARAN, BHAVANA HOUSE,
8. NALINI, D/O.SANKARAN, VALANCHERY
For Petitioner :SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :11/03/2009
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.7422 of 2009
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of March, 2009
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the 4th defendant in O.S.No.313 of 2002 on
the file of the court of the Munsiff of Tirur. The suit was for
partition. A preliminary decree was passed. The petitioner and
others challenged the preliminary decree in A.S.No.70 of 2006
on the file of the Sub Court, Tirur. In that appeal, the learned
counsel for the petitioner submits, a stay was granted staying
passing of the final decree. However, the appeal was dismissed
for default on 11.11.2008. The petitioner filed I.A.No.2755 of
2008 for restoration of the appeal. That application is not
disposed of so far. The final decree proceedings are going on.
The anxiety of the petitioner is that there is likelihood of the final
decree being passed before the disposal of the application for
restoration of the appeal. The prayer made by the petitioner is
to issue a direction to the Sub Court, Tirur to consider and pass
appropriate orders in I.A.No.2755 of 2008 in A.S.No.70 of 2006.
There is also a prayer to stay the final decree proceedings in the
meanwhile. It is submitted that the application for restoration
WPC No.7422/2009 2
stands posted to 2.4.2009.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition
is disposed of directing the Sub Court, Tirur to dispose of
I.A.No.2755 of 2008, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate
before closure of the court for summer vacation. It is submitted
that in the final decree proceedings, the Commissioner has filed
the report. There is no likelihood of the final decree being
passed before the closure of the court for summer holidays. If it
were to happen, the petitioner would be free to approach the
final decree court and apprise about the subsequent
developments and apply for appropriate orders. The petitioner
shall serve a copy of this judgment to the counsel appearing for
the respondents before the appellate court for their information.
K.T.SANKARAN,
JUDGE
csl