Allowed

Thachedath Raghavan v. Thachedath Gopalan

Kerala HC19 Aug 2016OP(C)/1740/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition under Article 227 petitions the High Court for speedy disposal of a pending appeal involving a senior citizen. The Court directed the Sub Court to expedite the case disposal before the summer vacation.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Sub Judge, Tirur to expedite disposal of A.S.No.47/2014 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, before the court closes for summer vacation.

Thachedath Raghavan Vs Thachedath Gopalan — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/28TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

OP(C).No. 1740 of 2016 (O)

¶6

AS 47/2014 OF SUB COURT, TIRUR.

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

THACHEDATH RAGHAVAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, AGED 65 YEARS, VELIMUKKU AMSOM DESOM, PO VELIMUKKU-676317, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.K.P.SUDHEER

¶10

SRI.Y.JAFAR KHAN

¶11

RESPONDENT:

¶12

THACHEDATH GOPALAN AGED 68 YEARS, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, VELIMUKKU AMSOM DESOM, PO VELIMUKKU-676317, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶13

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

mbr/

¶15

OP(C).No. 1740 of 2016 (O)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶18

EXHIBIT	P1 :	TRUE COPY OF	THE JUD	GMENT DT. 31/3/14 IN
		OS NO. 188/11 COURT, PARAPPA	ON THE NANGADI	FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S
EXHIBIT	P2 :	TRUE COPY OF A.S NO. 47/14 JUDGE'S COURT,	THE AP FILED B TIRUR	PEAL MEMORANDUM IN EFORE THE SUBORDINATE AND DT. 21/5/14.
EXHIBIT	P3 :	TRUE COPY OF AS NO. 47/14 P JUDGE'S COURT, OF E-COURTS.	THE HI ENDING TIRUR	STORY OF CASE DETAILS OF BEFORE THE SUBORDINATE AND OBTAINED FROM WEBSITE
RESPONDE --------	NT(S)' ------	EXHIBITS: ---------	NIL
				//TRUE COPY//
				P.S. TO JUDGE

¶19

mbr/

¶20

K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

¶21

O.P.(C).No.1740 of 2016

¶22

....................................................... Dated this the 19^th day of August, 2016.

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

This petition is filed by the petitioner for a speedy disposal of AS.No.47/2014 pending before the Sub Court, Tirur under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶25

It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner filed OS.No.188/2011 before Munsiff Court, Parappanangadi for partition of the property and a preliminary decree for partition has been passed as per Ext.P1 judgment. The respondent herein filed AS.No.47/2014 before the Sub Court, Tirur and the case is being adjourned without any reason. The petitioner is senior citizen and suffering from ailments also. So he wanted the case to be disposed of at the earliest. Hence the petition.

¶26

Considering the nature of relief claimed, this court felt that the petition can be disposed of after getting a report from the concerned court and dispensing with notice to the respondent. Accordingly a report has been called for and the Sub Judge, Tirur has sent a report which reads as follows:

¶27

“A.S.No.47/2014 is posted for lower court records to 8.12.2016. With regard to the time required for disposal of the appeal, I may submit about the present pendency of cases before this court. As on 30.6.2016, 608 appeals are pending, of which 150 cases are more than 5 year old. Altogether 556 Original Suits are also pending before this court and out of that 114 cases are more than 5 year old. Apart from that 181 Sessions Cases and 91 Final Decree matters are also pending besides Original

¶28

¶29

O.P.(C).No.1740 of 2016

¶30

Petitions, Insolvency petitions, Civil Miscellaneous Appeals and Execution Petitions. In view of the huge pendency of old cases, I may submit that minimum one year time is required for disposing A.S.47/2014.

¶31

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. K.P. Sudheer and perused the report.

¶32

It is true that old cases are pending before Sub Court, Tirur but at the same time some priority must be given for disposal of the cases where senior citizens are involved and status will have to be shown regarding the disposal of the cases as well. So considering the fact that the petitioner is a senior citizen and the dispute involved, according to the counsel for the petitioner is only regarding reservation claimed in respect of the house in the property, whether it has to be valued or not, to be valued at the time of allotment and on all other aspects, there is no much dispute. So considering the circumstances, this court feels that the petition can be disposed of as follows:

¶33

The Sub Judge, Tirur is directed to expedite the disposal of AS.No.47/2014 pending before that court as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, before the court closes for summer vacation.

¶34

With the above direction and observation, this petition is disposed of. Office is directed to communicate a copy of this judgment to the court below at the earliest. Sd/-

¶35

K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

¶36

¶37

O.P.(C).No.1740 of 2016 3

Thachedath Raghavan v. Thachedath Gopalan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thachedath Raghavan v. Thachedath Gopalan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shahul Hameed M.P. Vs Sudheesh Kumar

Antony.S Vs Roney Alex

Jathavedan Unni @ Jathavedan Namboothiri Vs Hari @ Damodaran Namboothiri

Rev. C.Chrispus Vs Rev. M.Robinson

Mariamma R. @ Mariamma Daniel Vs Devi Nagar

Shajna Beevi Vs Mytheen Kannu