Kerala High Court
Joseph K.P vs Palakkad Roller Flour Mill Pvt. Ltd on 28 October, 2016
Author: K.Ramakrishnan
Bench: K.Ramakrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/6TH KARTHIKA, 1938
OP(C).No. 2213 of 2016 (O)
---------------------------
OS 207/2015 SUB COURT, PALAKKAD
---------------
PETITIONER(S)/PLAINTIFF:
-----------------------
JOSEPH K.P,
AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. K.P.PAULOSE,
RESIDING AT 2-A2, HOLY FAITH
RESIDENCY, BEHIND MODEL ENGINEERING
COLLEGE, THRIKKAKARA, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR
SMT.V.SHYLAJA
RESPONDENT(S)/DEFENDANTS:
-------------------------
1. PALAKKAD ROLLER FLOUR MILL PVT. LTD,
DOOR NO.4/654, PERUVEMBA ROAD,
KOTTANI, KINASSERY. PO., KANNADI NO.2 VILLAGE,
PALAKKAD TALUK.PIN- 678606 (A PRIVATE LIMITED
COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT 1956).
2. MOHAMMED ANSAR @ ANSARI,
AGE 56 YEARS, S/O. PALLITHODI
MOHAMMED ISMAIL, RESIDING AT
CHENTHAMARA NAGAR, SVR MILL
ROAD, THATHAMANGALAM, CHITTUR TALUK,
PIN-678101 (DIRECTOR OF
M/S. PALAKKAD ROLLER FLOUR MILL PVT. LTD,
3. AYUBKHAN
AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. V. ABDURAZACK,
RESIDING AT 24/319 CHELLAMMA MANZIL,
PALLIMUKKU, THATHAMANGALAM,
CHITTUR TALUK PIN-678101.
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
28-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
PJ
OP(C).No. 2213 of 2016 (O)
---------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
EXHIBIT P1: THE TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS.NO.207/2015
PENDING BEFORE THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE, PALAKKAD.
EXHIBIT P2: THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR ATTACHMENT
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
NIL.
/ TRUE COPY /
P.S. TO JUDGE
PJ
K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
=====================
O.P.(C). No.2213 of 2016
==================================
Dated this the 28th day of October 2016
JUDGMENT
This is an application filed by the petitioner seeking intervention of this Court for speedy disposal of O.S.207 of 2015 pending before Sub Court, Palakkad under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. It is alleged in the petition that petitioner as plaintiff filed Ext.P1 suit as O.S.No.207 of 2015 pending before Sub Court, Palakkad for realisation of certain amount from the 1st respondent company. The petitioner filed Ext.P2 application for attachment and attachment was ordered. The petitioner is in need of money and unless the case is disposed of immediately, he will be put to serious hardship. So he prayed for intervention of this Court for seeking the following relief.
"Direct the sub court, palakkad to expedite the trial of O.S.No.207/2015 within 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment."
3. Considering the nature of relief claimed, this court feels that the petition can be disposed of after getting a report from the court below regarding the present stage and time required for O.P.(C). No.2213 of 2016 2 disposal of the case. Accordingly, as report has been called for and additional Sub Judge had sent a report which reads as follows:-
"With reference to the above, I may report that O.S.207/2015 of this Court is a suit for recovery of money and that the defendants 1 to 3 in the said suit had entered appearance. The 2nd defendant filed written on 09.09.2016. The 1st and 3rd defendants did not file written statement. Now the case is posted to 15.10.2016 for hearing u/s 89 of the CPC. In this connection, I may further report that 5 months' time is required for disposing of the said suit."
4. Heard Shri. K.T. Anilkumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the report.
5. Admittedly the case is of the year 2015. However the court below expressed willingness to dispose of the case within five months. So this Court feels that the report can be accepted and the petition can be disposed of as follows:-
Additional Sub Judge Palakkad is directed to expedite disposal of O.S.207 of 2015 pending before that court as expeditiously as possible at any rate within five months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment as undertaken in the report. The court below also directed to explore the possibilities of settlement as contemplated under Section 89 of Code of Civil O.P.(C). No.2213 of 2016 3 Procedure. Registry is directed to communicate this judgment to the court below at the earliest.
Sd/-
K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE SKV