Sasidharan Nair vs Anil Kumar

C.S Dias, J

The original petition is filed to direct the Court of the Munsiff, Nedumangad, to expeditiously dispose of O.S. No.904/2022, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

The petitioner has averred in the original petition that he has filed the above suit against the respondents, inter alia, for a fixation of boundary and other consequential reliefs. The petitioner is aged 65 years and is a senior citizen. The pendency of the suit is causing severe hardship to the petitioner. Hence, the court below may be directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously.

Heard; Smt. Nikita Nair C.S., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on admission.

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.

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.

Ext P3 plaint was instituted only on 25.11.2022. It is not discernible as to whether the respondents have been filed a written statement. Thus, I am of the view that the suit is only at its nascent stage.

In Shiju Joy.A vs. Nisha [2021 (2) KHC 462], a Division Bench of this Court has succinctly held that in cases pending before the Family Courts, if a litigant desires to get an out-of-turn disposal, then such a 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.

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 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.

On an overall consideration of the pleadings and the principles laid down in the afore-cited 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 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 up to the petitioner 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.