Remanded

Anitha Kumari.S v. Jayasree

Kerala HC7 Dec 2016OP(C)/2620/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a PIL under Article 227 seeking early disposal of a pending civil suit (OS No.781/2011). The Court considered the report from the lower court indicating an 8-month timeline despite heavy pendency and directed the Sub Judge to expedite disposal within that period.

What did the court decide?

The Second Additional Sub Judge, Thiruvananthapuram is directed to expedite the disposal of OS.No.781/2011 within 8 months.

Anitha Kumari.S Vs Jayasree — 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/16TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

OP(C).No. 2620 of 2016 ()

¶6

OS 781/2011 OF SUB COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

ANITHA KUMARI.S, D/O GOPALAN NAIR, 'SARU SADANAM' MANCHADI, MALAYANKIZHU, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR

¶10

SRI.JELSON J.EDAMPADAM

¶11

RESPONDENT:

¶12

JAYASREE, W/O.DR.PREMJITH, 'SAROJAM'

¶13

PARASUVAIKAL, PARASSALA PO, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK - 695 121.

¶14

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

mbr/

¶16

OP(C).No. 2620 of 2016 ()

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶19

EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.781/2011 OF THE SUB COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN EXT.P1 PLAINT. EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE B DIARY IN OS.NO.781/2011 OF SUB COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶20

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL ----------------------//TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE

¶21

mbr/

¶22

K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

¶23

....................................... O.P.(C).No.2620 of 2016

¶24

........................................ Dated this the 7^th day of December, 2016.

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

This is a petition filed by the petitioner seeking early disposal of OS.No.781/2011 pending before the IInd Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶27

It is alleged in the petition that the respondent herein filed Ext.P1 suit as OS.No.781/2011 before the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram, which is pending before the Second Additional Sub Court. The petitioner herein entered appearance and filed Ext.P2 written statement. Though the case is of the year 2011, it is not being disposed of so far. So she prays for intervention of this court for disposal of the case. Hence this petition.

¶28

Considering the nature of relief claimed, this court has called for a report from the concerned court regarding the present stage and time required for disposal of the case and accordingly a report has been sent which reads as follows:

¶29

“xxxx xxxx xxxx

¶30

The total pendency of cases pending before this Court is 4959 (OS.987,OP.16,FDA 17, EP-OS 441, E-LAR 2023, RP 30, LAR 778, SC 667). I have scheduled sessions cases till the month of December, 2016 and summons is already ordered to be served to the witnesses. There a re number of other cases required to be disposed within the time limits.

¶31

¶32

O.P.(C).No.2620 of 2016

¶33

Considering the above facts I may submit that 8 months time is necessary for conveniently disposing the above cases on merits.”

¶34

Heard Sri. Pirappancode V.S. Sudheer, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the report.

¶35

It is seen from the report that there are more older cases are pending in that court and it is one of the heaviest court in that area. Further there are sessions case also pending in that court. However, the Sub Judge has expressed his willingness to expedite the disposal of the case within 8 months. So this court feels that the petition can be disposed of accepting the report of the court below as follows:

¶36

The Second Additional Sub Judge, Thiruvananthauram is directed to expedite the disposal of OS.No.781/2011 pending before that court as expeditiously as possible within 8 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment as undertaken in the report..

¶37

Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this judgment to the concerned court immediately.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

¶40

Anitha Kumari.S v. Jayasree

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anitha Kumari.S v. Jayasree

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

T.F.George Vs Bharathkshemam Company

K.C.Chandy Vs K.M.Mani

C.S.Swaminathan Vs C.S.Sathyan

Dibeesh K. Vs Dijina M.

Aswathy Chandran.M Vs Rajkumar.S.Nair

Thara Vs v.Vivek