The court reinforced that failure to administratively transfer cases should not lead to dismissal and highlighted the need for timely resolutions.

The Original petition is filed by the petitioner/decree holder for issuing direction to the Sub Court, Kattapana, to hear and dispose the Exhibit-P3 in E.P.No.7/2015.

2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a decree holder obtaining the preliminary decree for realization of money before the Addl. Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram, in O.S.No. 200/2009 dated 13.11.2013. Subsequently, the petitioner found the defendant having property within the Jurisdiction of the Sub Court, Kattapana. Therefore, he got the transfer decree and filed it before the Sub Court, Kattapana, in E.P.No.7/2015. During the pendency of the said execution petition, a new Sub Court has been established at Devikulam, and it is further contended that after the establishment of the new Sub Court at Devikulam, the trial court ought to have transferred the said execution petition to the Sub Court, Devikulam, on the administrative side, but it was not done. Subsequently, the petition was dismissed for not taking steps hence, the petitioner filed an application for restoration of the execution petition to set aside the dismissal.

4. It is further contended that, meanwhile, the respondent also filed Exhibit P4 for lifting the attachment, and therefore the petitioner filed an application to hear and dispose of Exhibit P3 and proceed to hear and pass the order on Exhibit P4, which is the application filed by the JDR for lifting the attachment, accordingly, this petitioner is before this Court.

5. It is unfortunate that the petitioner approached this Court by filing the Original Civil Petition on 30.10.2017 even though the respondent appeared in this case and this has been lying for almost 8 years. Therefore, it is necessary for this Court to take up this matter and dispose of it today.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, once the new court was established, it is the duty of the existing court on the administration side, as per the notification, if any, issued by the High Court, to transfer the cases to the newly established court. But the same was not done by the Subordinate court or Principal District court, Thodupuzha, could have issued an administrative order for transferring the pending execution cases or any other suits to the newly established court at Devikulam, but that was not done. Therefore, merely because a step was not taken, that itself is not a ground for dismissing the petition. However, the petitioner filed an application, E.A. No. 204 2017 (Exhibit P3), for restoration, which has been pending for quite a long time without passing an order.Therefore, it is necessary to issue direction to the court concerned.

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the Sub Court, Kattapana, to hear and dispose of Exhibit P3 filed by the decree holder and then proceed to pass the order on Exhibit P4 filed by the respondent and then proceed to hear and dispose of the I.A. filed by the JDR, that is, E.A. No. 217/17. The Sub Court, Kattapana, is directed to dispose of the application of the defendant JDR within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

The application of the petitioner decree holder shall be disposed of within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and thereafter, within one month, the application of the respondent shall be disposed of.