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
6 paragraphs · 277 wordsR. Basant, J.—The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits and the report dated 18.08.2010 submitted by the learned Judge of the Family Court confirms that C.S. No. 116 of 2005 pending before that court has already been disposed of on 18.08.2010. No further directions are necessary in this matter. But we must say that we are really perturbed to note that the matter, which was reserved for orders on 31.08.2009, was disposed of only on 18.08.2010. The explanation offered by the learned Judge does not appeal to us to be convincing. The learned Judge must ensure that such instances do not recur.
This Writ Petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed as unnecessary in view of the subsequent disposal of C.S. No. 116 of 2005.
ORDER
The grievance of the petitioner is most shocking and unfortunate. According to him C.S. No. 116 of 2005, which is pending before the Family Court, Kollam and has been reserved for orders on 31.08.2009, has not been disposed of even now. The short prayer of the petitioner is that there may be a direction for expeditious disposal.
Call for a report from the Family Court. Is the submission made above correct? If so, why has C.S. No. 116 of 2005 not been disposed of by now? We need only state that if the submissions are true, we expect the learned Judge of the Family Court to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law.
Await report of the Family Court. Call on 20.08.2010. The Registry shall forthwith communicate the direction to the Family Court and obtain the report of the Family Court by 20.08.2010.