Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Bhaskaran Nair vs Viswambharan on 26 March, 2019

Author: Sunil Thomas

Bench: Sunil Thomas

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                              PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

     TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1941

                       OP(C).No. 778 of 2019

   AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 291/2017 of MUNSIFF COURT,
                            CHAVAKKAD




PETITIONER:

              BHASKARAN NAIR
              AGED 57 YEARS
              S/O.KIZHAKEKARA BHASKARAN NAIR,
              THIRUVENKIDOM DESOM, GURUVAYOOR P.O.,
              THRISSUR 680 101.


              BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)



RESPONDENT:

              VISWAMBHARAN
              AGED 72 YEARS
              S/O. THERIL APPUKKUTTAN,
              IRINGAPURAM P.O.,
              THRISSUR 680 103.




THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.03.2019, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 OP(C).No. 778 of 2019

                                         2



                                   JUDGMENT

The grievance of the petitioner is regarding the delay in the disposal of O.S.No.291/2017 pending before the Munsiff Court, Chavakkad. Pursuant to a direction issued by this Court, the learned Munsiff by his communication dated 19.03.2019 has informed that the present matter does not come under the target list of the year. There are 8650 cases pending in that court of which 546 cases are 5 plus year old cases. In spite of huge pendency of the cases, the learned Munsiff has offered to dispose of the matter within a period of nine months.

2. Considering the limited prayer sought by the petitioner and the relief that is proposed to be granted, I am not inclined to issue notice to the respondent.

3. Having regard to the huge pendency of the cases in that court, I feel that nine months time prescribed by the court below is OP(C).No. 778 of 2019 3 justifiable. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the fact that the connected suit as O.S. No.542/2011 has already been disposed of. Hence, the court below having due regard to it, shall dispose of O.S.No.291/2017 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of nine months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

O.P.(C). stands disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE Pn 26/03 OP(C).No. 778 of 2019 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE 2ND ADDL. SUB COURT, THRISSUR DATED 24.8.2013.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1132 OF 2007 DATED 31.3.2011.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN A S NO.
31 OF 2016 DATED 9.12.2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, CHAVAKKAD.

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DELIVERED IN OPC NO. 2512 OF 2016 DATED 25.10.2016.

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O S NO.

291 OF 2017 DATED 14.2.2017 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, CHAVAKKAD. EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE I A NO. 1023 OF 2018 IN I A NO. 1459 OF 2017 IN O S NO. 291 OF 2017 DATED 13.2.2019.