Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
T.R.RAVI, J
KRISHNAKUMAR .A – Appellant
Versus
ALMALIK JEWELLERRY PUTHENPALLY THRISSUR-1, UNIT OF AI. MUKTHADEER GOLD & DIAMONDS MANUFACTURING & WHOLE SALE JEWELLERRY GROUP, INDIA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. notice not returned, need for timely disposal. (Para 1) |
| 2. judicial officer reports two months required for disposal. (Para 2) |
JUDGMENT
Even though notice was issued to the 1st respondent, it has not been returned after service. In view of the order that is proposed to be issued, it is not necessary to complete service of notice on the 1st respondent.
2. The prayer in this original petition is for an early disposal of I.A.No.2/2025 in O.S.No.50/2025 on the file of the Additional Sub Court I, Thrissur. This Court had called for a report from the Judicial Officer regarding the time required to dispose of the application. The Judicial Officer has reported that two months' time will be required, excluding the period of vacation, to dispose of I.A.No.2/2025 in O.S.No.50/2025.
In view of the report, this original petition is disposed of directing the Additional Sub Judge I, Thrissur to consider and pass orders on I.A.No.2/2025 in O.S.No.50/2025, at the earliest, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment excluding the period of vacation.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
