Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 12937
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. NATARAJAN, J
PUSHKARAN – Appellant
Versus
L. SYAMALA – Respondent
OP(C) 988/2025
ADV SRI. R.GOPAN
The court emphasized the necessity for appellate courts to expedite the disposal of pending cases to ensure timely justice.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 151 - Original Petition filed to direct the 1st appellate Court to dispose of CMA No.18/2024 pending for a year - Petitioners are defendants in OS No.189/2023, aggrieved by an injunction order - Court finds that mandamus to the appellate Court would not prejudice the respondent's case. (Paras 2-5)
(B) Appellate Procedure - The appellate Court is directed to expedite the disposal of pending matters to ensure timely justice. (Para 4)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners, defendants in OS No.189/2023, filed an appeal CMA No.18/2024 against an injunction order granted by the trial Court, which has been pending for a year without any order.
Findings of Court:
The Court directed the 1st appellate Court to dispose of CMA No.18/2024 within 3 months from receipt of the judgment copy.
Issues: The main issue was the delay in the disposal of the appeal CMA No.18/2024 and the necessity for expeditious proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the importance of timely justice and the need for appellate Courts to address pending matters promptly.
Result: Original petition allowed.
JUDGMENT
This Original Petition (Civil) is filed by the petitioners to direct the 1st appellate Court i.e., Sub Court, Neyyattinkara, to dispose the CMA No.18/2024 till the disposal of the original petition (Civil).
2. It is submitted that the petitioners are stated to be the defendents before the trial Court in OS No.189/2023 on the file of the 1st Additional Munsiff Court, Neyyattinkara. There was an order passed by the trial Court in IA No.1/23 in OS No.189/2023 by granting injunction as against these petitioners. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed an appeal in CMA No.18/2024 before the 1st appellate Court, where, no order has been passed by the 1st appellate Court in spite of pending for a year. Hence, the appellants approached this Court.
3. Considering the facts and circumstances, the issuance of notice is already dispensed with by this Court through an order or direction. The mandamus issued to the 1st appellate Court would not cause any prejudice to the respondent's case, who is enjoying interim relief before the trial Court.
4. Considering the facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that a direction has to be issued to the 1st appellate Court to dispose of CMA No.18/2024 as early as possible.
5. Accordingly, this original petition (Civil) is allowed.
i. The Sub Court, Neyyattinkara is directed to dispose of CMA No.18/2024, as early as possible within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment.
