Disposed

Kesavapilla Gopakumar v. Padmanabha Pillai Kumaraswamy @ Palani

Kerala HC7 Dec 2016OP(C)/2783/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition filed under Article 226 seeking intervention for speedy disposal of an appeal pending in the Sub Court, Neyyattinkara. Court accepted a report from the Sub Judge requesting a 10-month extension and directed expedited disposal within that period considering the case's age and pending workload.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Sub Judge, Neyyattinkara, to dispose of the appeal within ten months.

Kesavapilla Gopakumar Vs Padmanabha Pillai… — 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. 2783 of 2016 ()

¶6

AS 14/2015 of SUB COURT, NEYYATTINKARA

¶7

------

¶8

PETITIONER(S):

¶9

KESAVAPILLA GOPAKUMAR

¶10

AGED 72 YEARS,NILAMEL, NAGAMKOTTUVEEDU, KADAVATTARM DEASM, NEYYATTINKARA

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.V.G.ARUN (K/795/2004) SMT.INDULEKHA JOSEPH SRI.NEERAJ NARAYAN

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

PADMANABHA PILLAI KUMARASWAMY @ PALANI

¶14

AGED 53 YEARS,PADMAKUMAR SADANAM, NILAMEL, NAGAMKOTTUVEEDUY, KADAVATTAROM DEASM, NEYYATTINKARA - 695 121

¶15

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

OP(C).No. 2783 of 2016 ()

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

EXHIBI P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN FAO NO 139 OF 2010 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT DATED 02-12-2013 EXHIBI P2: A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29-11-2014 OF THE HON'BLE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-II, NEYYATTINKARA EXHIBI P3: A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF E.P NO 17/16 IN O.S NO 396/1999 EXHIBI P4: A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL N A.S NO 14 OF 2015 IN OS NO 396/99 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE bp

¶21

K.RAMAKRISHNAN,

¶22

O.P.(C) Nos.2783 of 2016

¶23

Dated this the 7^th day of December, 2016

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

This petition was filed by the petitioner seeking intervention of this court for speedy disposal of A.S.14/2015 pending before the Sub Court, Neyyattinkara under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶26

It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.396/1999 on the file of the Additional Munsiff Court, No.II, Neyyattinkara. Earlier the suit was decreed and it was taken up in appeal by the respondent and it was remanded for fresh disposal. That remand order was challenged by the petitioners by filing a F.A.O.No.139/2010 before this court and this court by Ext.P1 judgment dismissed the same. Thereafter the Munsiff again passed Ext.P2 judgment reiterating the same findings and decreed the suit accordingly. The petitioner filed E.P.17/2016 evidenced by Ext.P3, and in the meantime the respondent filed Ext.P4 appeal as A.S.14/2015 before the Sub Court, Neyyattinkara and the same is not disposed of so far. The petitioner is a senior citizen and he prays for intervention of this court for speedy disposal. Hence this petition.

¶27

Considering the nature of relief claimed, this court felt that the petition can be disposed of after getting a report from the

¶28

O.P.(C) Nos.2783 of 2016

¶29

¶30

concerned court regarding the present stage and time required for disposal of the same. Accordingly a report has been called for and Sub

¶31

Judge, Neyyattinkara as sent a report, which reads as follows:

¶32

“AS 14.15 on the file of the this court has been challenged by the defendant in OS 396/99 on the file of the court of Additional Munsiff-II, Neyyattinkara. The case stands posted to 17.02.2017.

¶33

In this regard, I may further submit that 269 appeal suits up to the year 2016 are pending before this court. Among them, 57 appeals up to the year 2010 have been included in the target fixed by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala for the year 2016-2017. The total number of cases included in the target is 919 and that includes 470 sessions cases also. The total pendency of this court is 3036. The Hon'ble High Court has already given direction to for time bound disposal of 15 cases, which are not included in the target.

¶34

I may further submit that in case the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala finds it necessary to issue direction for time bound disposal of AS 14/15, a period of 10 months may kindly be granted to dispose of the above case.

¶35

The above report is being submitted before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala for favour of kind consideration.”

¶36

Heard Sri.Arun V.G., counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶37

who argued in support of his case and perused the report.

¶38

It is seen from the report that there are more cases pending which are older than this case and as per this courts direction, there were 15 cases which were directed to be disposed of within a time frame. Further these cases are not included in the target. However the Sub Judge has expressed willingness to dispose of the case within ten months. Considering the report and also considering the workload of that court, this court feels that the petition can be

¶39

O.P.(C) Nos.2783 of 2016

¶40

¶41

disposed of accepting the report of the concerned Sub Judge. It must be remembered that the original suit was of the year 1999 and it is the second round of litigation between the parties. So the petition is disposed of as follows:

¶42

The Sub Judge, Neyyattinkara is directed to expedite disposal of A.S.14/2015 pending before that court as expeditiously as possible at any rate within ten months from the date of receipt of this judgment. With the above observation and direction the petition is disposed of.

¶43

Registry is directed to communicate this judgment to the concerned court, immediately.

¶44

Sd/- K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶45

//True Copy//

¶46

P.A. to Judge

¶47

Kesavapilla Gopakumar v. Padmanabha Pillai Kumaraswamy @ Palani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kesavapilla Gopakumar v. Padmanabha Pillai Kumaraswamy @ Palani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

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