Vivekanandan v. Rakhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2015/30TH SRAVANA, 1937 OP(Crl.).No. 251 of 2015 (Q) ----------------------------- AGAINST M.C NO. 121/2013 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, IRINJALAKUDA PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS:
------------------------
1. VIVEKANANDAN @ THANKAPPAN, AGED 70 YEARS, S/O.KIZHEKKUDAN KUNJITTY, MATTATHOOR VILLAGE, MATTATHOORKUNNU DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
2. SARADA, AGED 63 YEARS, W/O.VIVEKANANDAN -DO- -DO- -DO---
3. JAYASREE, W/O.REGUVARAN, KARANATH HOUSE, MANKUTTYPADAM, PADY DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.N.MANOJ RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
---------------------- RAKHI, W/O. KIZHEKKUDAN SUNIL KUMAR, MATTATHOOR VILLAGE, MATTATHOORKUNNU DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 691 585.
THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-08-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(Crl.).No. 251 of 2015 (Q) ----------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS ---------------------- P1 COPY OF THE DEED OF SETTLEMENT NO.1493/1985. P2 COPY OF THE DEED OF ASSIGNMENT NO.1766/2009 P3 COPY OF MC NO.121/13 PENDING OF THE FILES OF THE MAGISTRATE COURT AT IRINJALAKUDA P4 COPY OF OBJECTION FILED BY PETITIONERS TO MC 121/13 PENDING ON THE FILES OF THE MAGISTRATE COURT AT IRINJALAKUDA. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:
--------------------- NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE ab
P.UBAID, J.
--------------------------------------- O.P(Crl) No.251 of 2015 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of August, 2015
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners herein are the respondents 1 to 3 in M.C No.121/2013 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakuda. They seek a direction under Article 227 of the Constitution for expeditious disposal of the case. As required by the Court, the learned Magistrate has submitted report dated 19.8.2015 that there is another connected matter, M.C No.125/2013, that the two cases are being considered together, that the total pendency there is 7115, and that three months time is reasonably required for disposal. In the above situation, where pendency in the court below is huge, it is inappropriate to direct a time bound disposal. However, the report of the learned Magistrate which indicates that the case could be disposed of within three months is recorded, and the original petition is closed. If necessary the date of posting can be advanced on application, to ensure disposal within three months. P.UBAID JUDGE ab