SUBRAMANIAN Vs. THANKAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The original petition is filed to direct the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Irinjalakuda to consider and dispose of I.A.No.1/2021 (Ext.P3) and I.A.No.2/2021 (Ext.P4) in A.S.No.11/2021, within a time frame.

(2.) The petitioners are the appellants in the above appeal, which is filed against the respondents and challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Court of the Additional Munsiff, Irinjalkuda in O.S.No.610/2010. The petitioners contend that after the passing of Ext.P1 and P1(a) judgment and decree, they had entrusted the file with a Lawyer to file the appeal. The Lawyer assured them that the appeal was filed and an order of stay was passed. Later, they came to learn that the Lawyer was undergoing treatment for renal failure. Thus the petitioners took back the file from the said Lawyer and have now filed Ext.P2 appeal. They have also filed Exts.P3 and P4 applications to stay the impugned judgment and decree, and also to condone the delay in filing the appeal. However, since service of notice on the 15th respondent is not completed, who is said to be employed abroad, Exts.P3 and P4 are not being considered. In the meantime, the respondents are hastily proceeding with the execution petition. If the respondents go ahead with the execution, the appeal would be rendered infructuous, which in turn will casue them severe prejudice. Hence, the original petition.

(3.) Pursuant to the order dtd. 8/3/2022 passed by this Court, the Court of the Munsiff, Irinjalakuda has by communication dtd. 11/3/2022, informed this Court that the respondents have filed I.A.No.10095/2015 to pass a final decree in the suit. The case is posted for the Commission Report. The learned Munsiff has sought one month to dispose of the final decree application.