IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 16969 of 2009(O)
1. M.A.KAMARUDHEEN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MOHAMMED IBRAHIM,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.TOM K.THOMAS
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :06/07/2009
O R D E R
S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No. 16969 OF 2009 O
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 6th day of July, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is the second defendant in OS.No.764/92 on
the file of the Additional Munsiff Court, Palakkad. Suit is one for
perpetual prohibitory injunction and the respondent is the
additional plaintiff. The dispute involved in the suit related to a
religious worship place in respect of which the plaintiff claimed
absolute right and that is challenged by the defendant. The
offering made by the devotees in the subject matter, pursuant to
orders passed by the court, are now in deposit of the court. While
the suit is still pending, plaintiff moved a cheque application for
release of the amount under deposit. Ext.P2 is the copy of that
application. Apprehending that the court may pass orders on
Ext.P2 application, second defendant has filed this writ petition
invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. Notice was served on the counsel appearing for the
respondents in the court below and a memo evidencing such
WPC.16969/09
: 2 :
service has been filed by the petitioner. But the respondents have
not entered appearance. I heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner. A report was also called for from the court concerned
as to whether the suit is ripe for trial and if so the time required for
its disposal. From the report and also submission made by the
counsel, it is seen the entire evidence had been recorded and the
case was also heard by the previous presiding officer, who still
continues in the same station but presiding over another court
having concurrent jurisdiction, after the general transfer effected in
the re-opening of the courts. In the report the Additional Munsiff,
in whose court the case is now pending, has adverted to some
aspects which would indicate his difficulties in disposing the case
expeditiously. As I find that the officer, who had earlier heard the
case, is still continuing in the station, but in a different court, it
would be advantageous to the parties and also in the interest of
justice the case be transferred to the court of that officer(Principal
Munsiff Court, Palakkad) so that an expeditious disposal of the
suit can be given effect to. OS.No.764/92 shall stand transferred
to the Principal Munsiff Court, Palakkad, and the learned Munsiff
WPC.16969/09
: 3 :
shall dispose of the suit, after hearing the counsel on both sides
as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The
release of the amount requested for under Ext.P2 application shall
be subject to the result of the suit. Writ petition is disposed as
indicated above.
Send a copy of the judgment to the Principal Munsiff and
Additional Munsiff Court, Palakkad, and handover a copy of the
judgment to the learned counsel for the petitioner on usual terms.
Sd/-
(S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE)
aks
// True Copy //
P.A. to Judge