IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 23277 of 2009(O)
1. C.VARGHESE,MUTTATHIL VEEDU,PIRAVANTHUR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THANKAMMA 2 ANNA MARIA,MUTTATHIL VEEDU,
... Respondent
2. M.THANKACHAN,MUTTENTHIL VEEDU,ALLIMUKKU,
3. MATHEW,(SAJAN),MUTTATHIL VEEDU,
4. JOHNSON,MUTTATHIL VEEDU,ALIMUKKU,
5. ALICE,MUTTATHIL VEEDU,ALIMUKKU,
6. LALI,MUTTATHIL VEEDU,ALIMUKKU,
7. V.MATHEWKUTTY,S/O.C.VARGHESE,MUTTATHIL
For Petitioner :SRI.B.MOHANLAL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :24/08/2009
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
-----------------------------
W.P.(C).No.23277 OF 2009
--------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of August 2009
-------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed seeking the
following reliefs.
i) To direct the Subordinate Court,
Kottarakara to dispose of A.S No.193/2004 within a
stipulated time as directed by this Hon’ble Court.
ii) To direct the Subordinate Court,
Kottarakara to dispose of A.S No.193/2004 within a
stipulated time as directed by this Hon’ble Court
by giving preference to the petitioner as a senior
citizen.
W.P.(C).No.23277 OF 2009 Page numbers
iii) To issue such other reliefs as this
Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case.
2. Petitioner is the first respondent in
A.S No.193/2004 on the file of the Sub Court,
Kottarakara. Respondents 1 to 6 are the legal
heirs of the original plaintiff in the above suit
which was one for declaration of title, possession
and injunction. Suit was dismissed. But, the
counter claim raised by the first defendant /
petitioner in his written statement was decreed.
The appeal has been preferred by respondents 3 to 6
challenging the dismissal of the suit and decreeing
of the counter claim. Petitioner claiming to be a
senior citizen seeks an early disposal of the
appeal by issuance of appropriate orders /
directions from this court to the court below,
invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with
this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India.
W.P.(C).No.23277 OF 2009 Page numbers
3. I heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made
and taking note of the facts and circumstances
presented, I find no notice to the respondents is
necessary, and it is dispensed with. A report was
called from the court below to examine whether
service is complete in appeal, and, if so, the time
required for its disposal. The learned Sub Judge
has submitted a report. After perusing the report,
I find, an early disposal within a time frame fixed
by this court can be ordered as the appeal is now
ready for hearing and disposal. The court below is
directed to dispose the appeal expeditiously giving
it top priority in hearing, at any rate, before the
closing of the courts for Christmas vacation.
Subject to the above direction, writ petition is
closed.
Sd/-
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,
JUDGE
//TRUE COPY//
vdv P.A TO JUDGE