SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 56620

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. NATARAJAN, J
K.K.SHANKAR – Appellant
Versus
C.K.VIKRAMAN NAMPOOTHIRI – Respondent
OP(C) NO. 2891 OF 2025 | A.S NO.3 OF 2025 | O.S NO.299 OF 1999



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.C.S.MANILAL, SRI.S.NIDHEESH

The court mandates the timely disposal of I.A No.2/2025 to ensure the effective exercise of appellate rights.

Headnote:This original petition is filed under OP

(C) for directions to the Sub Court to expeditiously hear I.A No.2/2025 in A.S No.3/ 2025. The petitioner challenges the delay in the appellate court regarding the stay application related to a decree obtained in O.S Nos.299/1999 and 613/2010. The court directed the Sub Court to resolve the interlocutory application within fifteen days, emphasizing the necessity for timely consideration to prevent infructuous appeals. The final order mandates prompt action from the lower court.

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks timely resolution of the interlocutory application. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. delay in the appellate court necessitates directions from this court. (Para 4)
3. the court emphasizes the need for prompt action to prevent infructuous results. (Para 5)

JUDGMENT This original petition has been filed by the petitioner for issuing directions to the Sub Court, Thiruvalla, to hear and dispose of I.A No.2/2025 in A.S No.3/ 2025, in a time-bound manner.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 1st respondent obtained a decree in O.S Nos.299/1999 and 613/2010, against the defendant. The petitioner has filed appeal suit A.S No.3/2025 and for staying the operation and execution of the decree, he has filed an application I.A No.2/2025, along with the appeal on 01.08.2025. It is submitted that, despite several postings having elapsed, the appellate court has not taken up the interlocutory application for hearing or disposed of the same.

4.On the other hand, the decree holder is proceeding with the execution case, therefore it is necessary to issue directions.

5.A report has been sought from the Sub Court, Thiruvalla, regarding the present status of I.A No.2/2025 in A.S No.3/ 2025 and the time required to dispose of the same. The Sub Court, Thiruvalla, vide the letter dated 21.11.2025, has stated that the service is not completed. It is pertinent to note that the 1st respondent, who obtained the decree, is the only contesting respondent in the appeal, and the remaining respondents appear to be defendants. Therefore, issuing notice to the 1st respondent is necessary. Apart from that, once the appeal has been filed, the interlocutory application seeking a stay of operation and execution ought to be considered expeditiously. If the decree is executed, before the disposal of the stay petition, the filing of the very appeal becomes infructuous. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the interlocutory application within time time-bound manner. When the appeal was filed within time, issuance of notice to the other respondents is not necessary for considering the stay application.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the original petition is disposed of with a direction to the Sub Court, Thiruvalla, to hear and dispose of I.A No.2/2025 within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top