Allowed

Sasibala .G. v. Geetha Devi

Kerala HC23 Nov 2016OP(C)/2645/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, residing in Australia, filed a writ petition under Article 227 seeking to expedite a partition suit pending in a Sub Court. The High Court directed the lower court to dispose of the suit within six months based on the Sub Court's report estimating six months for completion.

What did the court decide?

The First Additional Sub Judge, Thiruvananthapuram was directed to expedite disposal of O.S.89/2014 within six months from the date of receipt of this judgment.

Sasibala .G. Vs Geetha Devi — Partition | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

OP(C).No. 2645 of 2016 (O) ---------------------------

¶6

OS 89/2014 OF I ADDITIONAL SUB COURT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ---------------

¶7

PETITIONER(S): -------------

¶8

SASIBALA .G, AGED 38 YEARS, D/O.SASIDHARA KARANAVAR, SAROJ BHAVAN, KALLUMMOODU, KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE, ALLEPPEY DIST NOW WORKING AT AUSTRALIA, REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HAJI CHANDRA KUMAR, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, VAISAKH, PRASANTH NAGAR, ULLOOR, MEDICAL COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

BY ADVS.SMT.K.KUSUMAM SRI.K.KALESH

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. GEETHA DEVI, AGED 58 YEARS, W/O.SASIDHARA KARANAVAR, SAROJ BHAVAN, KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE, ALLEPPEY DISTRICT.

¶12

2. SASIKALA.G, AGED 33 YEARS, D/O.SASIDHARA KARANAVAR, SAROJ BHAVAN, KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE, ALLEPPY DISTRICT.

¶13

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

K.V.

¶15

OP(C).No. 2645 of 2016 (O)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

----------------------EXHIBIT-P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT FILED IN O.S.89 OF 2014 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶19

EXHIBIT-P2: TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN IN O.S.89 OF 2014 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL SUBORDINATE JUDG'S COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶20

EXHIBIT-P3: TRUE COPY OF COUNTER CLAIM FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN IN O.S.89 OF 2014 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶21

EXHIBIT-P4: TRUE COPY OF REPLICATION TO COUNTER CLAIM FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS HEREIN IN O.S.89 OF 2014 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL SUBORDINATE JUDG'S COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶22

EXHIBIT-P5: TRUE COPY OF "B-DIARY" IN O.S.89 OF 2014 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL SUBORDINATE JUDG'S COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶23

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

K.V.

K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J

¶28

OP(C)No.2645 OF 2016

¶29

Dated this the 23^rd day of November 2016

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

This is an application filed by the petitioner seeking intervention of this court for speedy disposal of OS.89/2014 pending before I Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram within a time frame under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶32

It is alleged in the petition that petitioner is the defendant in Ext.P1 suit OS.89/2014 on the file of the I Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram. He entered appearance and filed Ext.P2 written statement and also raised Ext.P3 counter claim. The plaintiff filed Ext.P4 replication to the counter claim. Thereafter the case is not taken up for trial. It is being prolonged and she is settled in Australia with her husband and she is not able to come India often to conduct the case. So without intervention of this court, the case cannot be disposed of at the earliest. So she filed this petition seeking the

OP(C)No.2645 OF 2016

following relief:-

“A. To pass an order/writ/or other appropriate direction, directing the 1^st Additional Subordinate Judge's Court, Thiruvananthapuram to try and dispose of exhibit P1 case, OS.No.89/2014, pending on its file, within a time frame, as fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶37

B. To grant such other reliefs which are incidental to these proceedings and which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, fair and proper.

¶38

C. To allow the petitioner to recover all cost of the proceedings from the respondents and their assets”.

¶39

Considering the nature of the relief claimed,

¶40

this court felt that the petition can be disposed of after getting a report from the concerned court regarding the present stage and time required for disposal of the case. Accordingly a report has been obtained from I Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram which reads as follows:-

¶41

“The original suit of the year 2014 is filed for partitioning plaint schedule property getting permanent prohibitory injunction and other connected reliefs.

¶42

Defendant has filed written statement raising counter claim. Before framing issues, defendant filed a petition for amending counter claim which

¶43

¶44

¶45

stands allowed by this court. Yet again, defendant has filed another application for amending her counter claim. The said petition (IA.3371/16) filed on 21.10.2016 is posted for objection and hearing. On going through the pleadings I understand that this is a case involving serious disputes. Issues to be raised. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case., I may submit that I require six months time for disposal of the case”.

¶46

Heard Sri.K.Kalesh counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the report. Notice to others have been dispensed with.

¶47

The suit is of the year 2014. Normally this court will not give direction to the lower court to expedite new cases especially when old cases are pending before that court unless exceptional circumstances are made out. In this case the petitioner is residing along with her husband permanently settled in Australia and it is difficult for her to come to India often for the purpose of the case. Further in the Sub Judge’s report, it is stated that the presiding officer wants only six months time for disposal of the case. Considering the circumstances, this court feels that the petition can be disposed of accepting the

¶48

¶49

report of the court below. So the petition is disposed of as follows:

¶50

The First Additional Sub Judge, Thiruvananthapuram is directed to expedite disposal of OS.89/2014 pending before that court as expeditiously as possible within six months from the date of receipt of this judgment as undertaken in the report. Registry is directed to communicate this judgment to the court below at the earliest.

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶53

R.AV

Sasibala .G. v. Geetha Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sasibala .G. v. Geetha Devi

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

K.M.Kishorekumar Vs K.M.Sudheerkumar

Vidyasagar Vs Sunilkumar

T.a.Zaheer Vs Zakira

Geethamohan.M Vs Dileep.P

Dr.Aiswarya N Vs Dr.Akhilesh M

Radhika Vs Dr.Baburaj