Allowed

Shajna Beevi v. Mytheen Kannu

Kerala HC19 Aug 2016OP(C)/1927/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ under Article 227 seeking speedy disposal of a pending appeal challenging an eviction decree and directed execution of possession. The High Court noted heavy pendency but ordered disposal within nine months, while declining to interfere with the pending stay petition affecting execution.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Sub Judge, Attingal to dispose of Appeal No. 43/2015 within nine months from the date of receipt of this judgment.

Shajna Beevi Vs Mytheen Kannu — Property and Title | 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. 1927 of 2016 (O) --------------------------AS 43/2015 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, ATTINGAL

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

SHAJNA BEEVI

¶8

AGED 36 YEARS, D/O. SULTHANA BEEVI, SHAJNA MANZIL, ANDIVILAKAM, THEKKEVILA MURI, PALLIPURAM VILLAGE, PIN-695 301.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF SRI.A.MOHAMED RASHEED

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

MYTHEEN KANNU S/O. MOHAMMED HANEEFA, ADARASH MANZIL, ANDOORKONAM P.O., PIN-695301.

¶12

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

¶14

OP(C).No. 1927 of 2016 (O)

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶17

EXHIBIT P1:	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.10.2015 PASSED BY THE MUNSIFF COURT, ATTINGAL IN OS NO.82/13.
EXHIBIT P2:	COPY OF THE EXECUTION PETITION DATED 23.1.2016 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, ATTINGAL AS EP NO.3/16 IN OS NO.82/2016.
EXHIBIT P3:	COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 27.11.2015 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE SUB COURT, ATTINGAL AS AS NO.43/2015.
EXHIBIT P4:	COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DATED 21.12.2015 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUB COURT, ATTINGAL IN IA 1961/15 IN AS NO.43/15.
RESPONDENT(S)'	EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

¶22

O.P.(C)No.1927 of 2016

¶23

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

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

This petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to be given to the Sub Court, Attingal for a speedy disposal of AS.No.43/2015 pending before that court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶26

It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner is the owner of the building bearing No.AP.X/568-A-B of Andoorkonam grama panchayat. It was let out to the respondent. Thereafter as the area is not coming under the Rent Control Act, a suit was filed as OS.No.82/2013 for eviction and that suit was decreed as per Ext.P1 judgment of Munsiff Court, Attingal. Thereafter the petitioner filed Ext.P2 execution petition as EP.No.3/2016 in OS.No.82/2016. In the meantime, the respondent filed Ext.P3 appeal as AS.No.43/2015 before the Sub Court, Attingal and also moved for stay and the petitioner filed Ext.P4 counter affidavit to the same. It is alleged in the petition that no stay has been granted and the appeal is being prolonged, the petitioner is not able to get the building which is being deteriorated on account of wrongful use of the building by the tenant and the petitioner is not getting the rent also. So the petitioner filed this petition seeking the following relief:

¶27

i. To call for the records relating to Exts.P1 to P4 and to issue an

¶28

¶29

O.P.(C)No.1927 of 2016

¶30

order or direction directing the Sub Court, Attingal to dispose of A.S.No.43 of 2015 urgently at the most within 2 months;

¶31

ii. To issue an order or direction directing the Munsiff Court, Attingal to order delivery ordered by Ext.P1 judgment which is pending

¶32

in execution proceedings, as E.P.No.3 of 2016.

¶33

Considering the nature of relief claimed, this court felt that a report can be called for from the Sub Court, Attingal regarding the present stage and time required for disposal of the appeal dispensing with notice to the respondent. Accordingly, a report has been called for and the Sub Judge, Attingal has sent a report which reads as follows:

¶34

“The total pendency of Civil Cases in this court at present is 1767. 170 Sessions Cases are also pending trial before this Court. The Appeal Suits Case targeted for disposal are of the year upto 2010 and older cases. Hence, I humbly seek one year's time to dispose the case”.

¶35

Heard Sri. T.M. Abdul Latiff, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the report.

¶36

As regards the second relief is concerned, since an appeal is pending and a stay a petition has already been moved by the respondent, it is not proper for this court to direct the execution court to expedite the execution as claimed in the petition.

¶37

As regards the first relief is concerned, it is seen from the report that Principal Sub Court is a heavy court having 1767 cases and cases upto 2010 have been targeted for disposal on

¶38

O.P.(C)No.1927 of 2016 3

¶39

the administrative side of this court. However, considering the urgency and nature of reliefs claimed in the suit, such cases also will have to be disposed of as well. Considering the fact that the Sub Judge has expressed his willingness to dispose of the case within a period of one year, this court feels that the petition can be disposed of making some modification in the time limit asked for in the report for disposal. So the petition is disposed of as follows:

¶40

The Sub Judge, Attingal is directed to expedite the disposal of AS.No.43/2015 pending before that court as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within nine months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶41

With the above directions and observations, this petition is disposed of. Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this judgment to the court below at the earliest.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

¶44

¶45

O.P.(C)No.1927 of 2016 4

Shajna Beevi v. Mytheen Kannu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shajna Beevi v. Mytheen Kannu

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

Thachedath Raghavan Vs Thachedath Gopalan

Mariamma R. @ Mariamma Daniel Vs Devi Nagar