Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 59764
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
C.S. DIAS, J
THADATHIL SINDHU SURESH – Appellant
Versus
KANNUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE RUBBER AND AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SOCIETY LTD. NO.C-303 – Respondent
OP(C)/1068/2021
V.T.MADHAVANUNNI, V.A.SATHEESH, M.SASINDRAN
The court upheld its supervisory authority to ensure the expeditious disposal of appeals while protecting the rights during execution proceedings.
Headnote:
Supervisory Powers - Appeal - Article 227 - The court emphasized the need for expedient resolution of appeals and temporarily stayed execution proceedings while ensuring compliance with interim orders.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged an order directing the deposit of rent arrears in an ongoing appeal against a lower court's decree, arguing that the order was unreasonable.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner complied with interim orders and directed the lower court to expedite the appeal's disposal while staying further proceedings in execution.
Issues: Whether the order to deposit rent arrears was excessive and whether the appeal process could be expedited.
Ratio Decidendi: The court exercised its supervisory powers under Article 227, emphasizing the importance of timely resolution and compliance with interim orders in ongoing cases.
Final Decision: The court directed expedited resolution of the appeal by the subordinate court and stayed execution proceedings until then.
J U D G M E N T
The original petition is filed challenging Ext P7 order passed in I.A.No.894/2019 in A.S.No.56/2019 by the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Payyannur. The petitioner is the appellant and the respondent is the respondent in the above appeal.
2. The concise case of the petitioner, relevant for the determination of the original petition, is: he has filed A.S.No.56/2019 before the court below, challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Court of the Munsiff, Thaliparamba, in O.S.No.309/2014. Along with the appeal, he has filed I.A.No.894/2019 to stay the execution of the decree. The court below, by the impugned Ext P7 order, directed the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.3,02,756/- towards alleged arrears of rent. Ext P7 is extortionate and unreasonable. Hence, the original petition.
3. When the original petition came up for admission on 28.06.2022, this Court directed the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for the purpose of staying the execution of the decree in E.P.No.87/2020. Thereafter, on 29.07.2021, this Court further directed the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and the respondent was permitted to withdraw the said amount.
4. Heard; Sri.V.T. Madhavanunni, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. M. Sasindran, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
5. It is conceded by both sides that the petitioner has complied with the conditions in the orders dated
28.06.2021 and 29.07.2021 and the amounts have been withdrawn by the respondent.
6. Taking into account the fact that the petitioner has already complied with the interim orders passed by this Court and that the appeal is of the year 2019, I am of the view that a quietus can be given to the matter, by directing the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Payyannur, to dispose of the appeal within a time frame.
In the result, in exercise of the supervisory powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , I direct the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Payyannur, to consider and dispose of A.S.No.56/2019, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, on or before 10.04.2023. Until such time, A.S.No.56/2019 is disposed of, all further proceedings in E.P.No.87/2020 of the Court of the Munsiff, Thaliparamba, shall stand stayed.
The original petition is ordered accordingly.
