AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
8 paragraphs · 401 wordsC.S Dias, J
The petitioners desire to get O.S No.114/2021 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff-I, Neyyattinkara, to be disposed of out of turn.
The petitioners have averred in the original petition that they are the plaintiffs in the above suit, which is filed against the respondents to set aside two sale deeds executed in favour of the respondents. The petitioners are put to severe hardship due to the acts committed by the respondents. Hence, the suit may be disposed of expeditiously.
Heard; Sri.M.R Sarin, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, lays down the procedure to be followed by civil courts, right from the date of institution of a suit till the execution of the decree.
It is trite, the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to be exercised sparingly and in appropriate cases. The power under this Article casts a duty on this Court to keep the subordinate Courts 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 subordinate courts on the mere asking of a party, that too to dispose of a proceeding, out of turn, unsettling the cases targeted for disposal.
On going through the pleadings and materials on record, it is seen that OS No.114/2021 was filed only on 6.02.2021. It is not discernible from the pleadings as to whether the respondents have even filed their written statement in the suit. Therefore, I am of the view that the suit is only at its nascent stage. I do not find any justifiable reason or ground made out in the original petition to exercise the power of superintendence of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to issue a direction as prayed for. It is not for this Court to dictate the time period within which the suit is to be disposed of because of the high pendency of older matters before the court below. Hence, I leave it to absolute discretion and wisdom of the court below to decide whether the suit is to be disposed of in precedence to older pending matters.
The original petition is dismissed with the above observation.