Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 11TH SRAVANA, 1945 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 390/2022 OF MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVALLA PETITIONER/DEFENDANT: MR. THOMAS GEORGE, AGED 64 YEARS S/O. LATE GEORGE, ROOM NO. 405, BUILDING NO. 28, KARNAWAR NAGAR -2, VIKROLI EAST, MUMBAI -410083. PERMANENT ADDRESS AT THEKKEMURIYIL,KOTTANGAL, EZHUMATTOOR MALLAPPALLY, PANATHANMTHITTA, PIN - BY ADV LALJI P.THOMAS RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF: 1 MR. VARGHESE GEORGE, S/O. LATE GEORGE, THEKKEMURY, CHERUTHOTTUVAZHI, VAIPUR, KOTTANGAL, MALLAPPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN, PIN - 689585 2 MR. SOJU GEORGE VARGHESE S/O. VARGHESE GEORGE, KOTTAMKULATH THEKKE MURI, CHERUTHOTTUVAZHI, VAIPUR, KOTTANGAL, MALLAPPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689585 THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: :: 2 ::
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 2nd day of August 2023 The original petition is filed to direct the court of the Munsiff, Thiruvalla, to expeditiously dispose of O.S.390/22 within a time period to be fixed by this Court.
2. The petitioner has averred in the original petition that he is the defendant in the above suit, which is filed by the respondents for a decree of injunction and other consequential reliefs. The petitioner has resisted the suit by filing Ext.P4 written statement. Petitioner is a senior citizen and is suffering from various ailments. The petitioner wants to get the suit disposed of immediately. Hence, the original petition.
3. Heard; Sri.Lalgi P Thomas, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on admission. :: 3 ::
4. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 lays down the procedure to be followed by civil courts right from the institution of the suit till the execution of the decree.
5. It is trite, the supervisory jurisdiction of this
Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to be exercised sparingly and in cases of exceptional rarity. The power under this Article casts a duty on this Court to keep Courts of the District Judicature and Tribunals within their bounds of authority and see that they discharge their functions as per the mandate prescribed under law. But, that does not mean that this Court is to intermeddle with the proceedings before the Courts/Tribunals, at each and every stage, that too on the mere asking of parties, particularly to dispose of a suit in precedence to older pending matters.
6. Ext.P3 plaint is seen instituted only on 14.10.2022. The petitioner has filed Ext.P4 written :: 4 ::
statement along with the counter claim on 3.11.2022. Indisputably the applications are pending consideration before the court below. The suit has not reached the pre-trial stage. Thus, I am of the view that the suit is only at its nascent stage.
7. In Shiju Joy.A vs. Nisha [2021 (2) KHC 462], a
Division Bench of this Court has succintly held that in cases pending before the Family Courts, if a litigant desires to get an out-of-turn disposal, then such person has to first move the Family Court by way of an interlocutory application stating the reasons for the expeditious consideration of the matter. Only if the Family Court rejects such request, the party can invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
8. Recently, another Division Bench of this Court in Prema Joy vs. John Britto [2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 235] , following the principles in Shiju Joy (supra), has :: 5 ::
emphatically held that ‘out-of-turn’ hearings cause injustice to other litigants. Deviation from the seniority, on the basis of the date of filing, shall be permitted only in exceptional cases and for genuine reasons. Merely because a litigant has the means or resources to approach this Court, with a prayer to expedite his case, he shall not be permitted to jump the queue or steal a
march over other litigants, and get an undue advantage.
9. On an overall consideration of the pleadings and the principles laid down in the aforecited precedents, I do not find any extra-ordinary circumstances or
pressing reasons to exercise the power of superintendence of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to direct the court below to expeditiously dispose of the suit in question. There are no justifiable grounds made out in the original petition, to direct the out of turn disposal of the said suit, and
:: 6 ::
upset the apple cart of the suits already listed for trial before the court below, where there is a huge backlog of suits and applications. Hence, this Court leaves it to the absolute discretion and wisdom of the court below to decide, whether the present suit is to be disposed of in precedence to older pending matters. It would be upto the petitioners to move the court below by filing an application, seeking for an out-of-turn disposal of the suit. If such an application is filed, the court below shall consider the same as per the principles laid down in Shiju Joy and Prema Joy (supra).
With the above observations, the original petition is dismissed. sd/- C.S.DIAS JUDGE jes :: 7 :: APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1529/2023 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS: Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LATEST TAX RECEIPT NO. KL03030402876/2023 ON 10.5.2023 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 654/1976 OF SRO VENNIKKULAM Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF PLAINT O.S. NO. 390/2022 ON 14.10.2022 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MUNSIFF'S COURT AT THIRUVALLA Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY WRITTEN STATEMENT ALONG WITH COUNTER
CLAIM WAS FILED BY THE PETITIONER / DEFENDANT ON 3.11.2022 BEFORE THE MUNSIFFS COURT OS NO. 390/22 , THIRUVALLA
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER/DEFENDANT FILED OBJECTION AS LA NO. 2/2022 IN OS NO.390/2022 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF' COURT, THIRUVALLA ON 01.11.2022 Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE IA NO.2/2022 IN O.S.NO.390/2022 BEFORE THE MUNSIFFS COURT, THIRUVALLA ON 14.10.2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER/DEFENDANT Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TREATMENT CERTIFICATE DATED 15.4.2023