High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2023-07-25Dismissed

Thulaseedharan Nair v. Nirmmala P and others

Case / Petition Number:OP(C) No. 1152 of 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2023-07-25
Court Decision / Holding: Original petition is dismissed. The High Court will not direct out-of-turn disposal in the present circumstances. It leaves to the trial court’s discretion whether the suit should be expedited before older matters; if an out-of-turn disposal application is filed, the trial court should consider it in light of Shiju Joy and Prema Joy.
Final Disposition: Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

THULASEEDHARAN NAIR

Respondents

NIRMMALA P
SARANGADHARAN
AMBIKA
REMA
LALITHA
GEETHA
GIRIJA
SHEELA S

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• K.R.VINOD
• M.S.LETHA
• NABIL KHADER
• CHITHRA C. EDADAN

Counsels for Respondents

• K.SIJU
• S.ABHILASH
• ANJANA KANNATH

Case Synopsis & Summary

The original petition, OP(C) No.1152 of 2023, filed before the Kerala High Court, seeks to direct the Munsiff Court, Sasthamcottah, to expeditiously dispose of OS No.113/2022. The petitioner, Thulaseedharan Nair, is the first defendant in the suit filed by respondents 1–7 seeking a decree for fixation of the eastern boundary of the plaint schedule property and related reliefs. The petition asserts that the suit is in its nascent pre-trial stage (written statement filed 26.07.2022) and that the pendency causes severe prejudice and hardship to him, warranting supervisory intervention under Article 227 of the Constitution. The matter has been hotly contested between the counsel for the petitioner (K.R. Vinod, M.S. Letha, Nabil Khader, Chithra C. Edadán) and respondents’ counsel (Siju, S. Abhilash, Anjana Kannath). The High Court cautions that Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional rarity, and that the court should not routinely intercede to alter seniority or accelerate proceedings, especially given the backlog and other matters listed for trial. It cites Shiju Joy A. v. Nisha (2021) and Prema Joy v. John Britto (2023 LiveLaw Ker) to emphasize that out-of-turn disposal must be approached through proper channels and justified by genuine reasons. The petition is ultimately dismissed, with directions that, if an out-of-turn disposal is sought, the trial court should consider it in light of the cited precedents.

Provisions of Law Cited

Article 227 of the Constitution of IndiaCode of Civil Procedure, 1908

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases.
Out-of-turn disposal is unjust to other litigants; deviation from seniority is permissible only in exceptional cases for genuine reasons.
Out-of-turn disposal in family or civil disputes should be approached through the appropriate authorities (Family Court first; only upon rejection can Article 227 be invoked).

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that OS 113/2022 before the Munsiff Court Sasthamcottah should be expeditiously disposed of. He asserts that pendency causes serious prejudice to him as the first defendant and seeks out-of-turn disposal under the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court. He relies on precedents emphasizing that expedited consideration must be justified and that queue-jumping should be avoided unless genuine reasons exist.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend there are no extraordinary grounds to interfere with the proceedings or accelerate disposal out of turn. They emphasize that the suit is at a nascent stage, that there is a heavy backlog of cases, and that any shortcut would disrupt the orderly listing and trial of older matters. They argue that the High Court should exercise restraint and leave the matter to the trial court, to decide on an out-of-turn motion if and when properly sought, in line with precedents cited by the Court.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Shiju Joy.A v. Nisha	2021 (2) KHC 462	Positive	Divisional Bench held that for out-of-turn disposal in matters pending before Family Courts, the party must first move the Family Court; only if rejected can the party invoke supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227.
Prema Joy v. John Britto	2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 235	Positive	Following Shiju Joy, held that out-of-turn hearing is unjust to other litigants and that deviation from seniority should be permitted only in exceptional, genuine circumstances; the present case is guided by this principle.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Thulaseedharan Nair v. Nirmmala P and others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 25[TH] DAY OF JULY 2023 / 3RD SRAVANA, 1945 ``` ``` OP(C) NO. 1152 OF 2023 SPEEDY DISPOSAL OF OS 113/2023 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, ``` ``` SASTHAMCOTTA ``` ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` THULASEEDHARAN NAIR AGED 57 YEARS S/O NANU NAIR, ASWATHY BHAVANAM, PANMANA, EDAPALLY COTTA P.O, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM, PIN- 691583, BY ADVS. K.R.VINOD M.S.LETHA NABIL KHADER CHITHRA C.EDADAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1NIRMMALA P AGED 66 YEARS D/O NAANU, KOTTAKAKATHU THARAYIL, PADAVADAKK MURIYIL, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM,, PIN - 690518 2SARANGADHARAN AGED 64 YEARS S/O NAANU, CHARUVILAYIL, KOVOOR MURI, MYNAGAPILLY, KOLLAM,, PIN - 690519 3AMBIKA AGED 62 YEARS D/O NAANU, PAALOT KIZHAKKATHIL, ARINALLOOR MURI, THEVALAKKARA, KOLLAM,, PIN - 690524 4REMA AGED 56 YEARS D/O NAANU, VALYATH KIZHAKKATHIL, AMBALATHUMBAGAM MURI, PORUVAZHI, KOLLAM,, PIN - 690520 5LALITHA AGED 51 YEARS D/O NAANU, CHARUVILAYIL HOUSE, KOVOOR MURI, MYNAGAPPILLY, KOLLAM,, PIN - 690519 6GEETHA AGED 48 YEARS D/O NAANU, CHARUVILAYIL HOUSE, KOVOOR MURI, MYNAGAPPILLY, KOLLAM,, PIN - 690519 ``` 2 OP(C) No.1152 of 2023 ``` 7GIRIJA AGED 46 YEARS W/O SHIJUMON, POIKAYIL (UTHRADAM) HOUSE, MANJAPPARA MURI, MALAPPEROOR, KOLLAM,, PIN - 691533 8SHEELA S AGED 50 YEARS W/O THULASEEDHARAN NAIR, ASWATHY BHAVANAM, VADUTHALA MURI, PANMANA, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM,, PIN - 691583 BY ADVS. K.SIJU S.ABHILASH(K/001641/1995) ANJANA KANNATH(K/939/2014) ``` ``` THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 3 OP(C) No.1152 of 2023 ## **C.S DIAS,J.** **--------------------------OP(C) No.1152 of 2023 ----------------------------Dated this the 25[th] day of July, 2023** ## **JUDGMENT** The original petition is filed to direct the Court of the Munsiff, Sasthamcottah, to expeditiously dispose of OS No.113/2022, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. 2. The petitioner’s case is that he is the first defendant in the above suit, which is filed by the respondents 1 to 7, seeking a decree for fixation of the eastern boundary of the plaint schedule property and other consequential reliefs. The petitioner entered appearance in the suit and filed his written statement on 26.7.2022. The pendency of the suit is causing severe prejudice and hardship to the petitioner. Hence, the original petition. 3. Heard; Sri.K.R Vinod, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Siju, the learned 4 OP(C) No.1152 of 2023 counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 7. Notice to the eighth respondent is dispensed with. 4. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 lays down the procedure to be followed by civil courts right from the institution of the suit till the execution of the decree. 5. It is trite, the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to be exercised sparingly and in cases of exceptional rarity. The power under this Article casts a duty on this Court to keep Courts of the District Judicature and Tribunals within their bounds of authority and see that they discharge their functions as per the mandate prescribed under law. But, that does not mean that this Court is to intermeddle with the proceedings before the Courts/ Tribunals, at each and every stage, that too on the mere asking of parties, particularly to dispose of a suit in precedence to older pending matters. 6. A perusal of the original petition shows that Ext P1 plaint was instituted only on 9.6.2022. The written statement is seen filed on 26.7.2022. The suit is only at 5 OP(C) No.1152 of 2023 its pre-trial stage. Therefore, I am of the view that the suit is only at its nascent stage. 7. In **Shiju Joy.A vs. Nisha** [2021 (2) KHC 462], a Division Bench of this Court has succintly held that in cases pending before the Family Courts, if a litigant desires to get an out-of-turn disposal, then such person has to first move the Family Court by way of an interlocutory application stating the reasons for the expeditious consideration of the matter. Only if the Family Court rejects such request, the party can invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. Recently, another Division Bench of this Court in **Prema Joy vs. John Britto** [2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 235], following the principles in **Shiju Joy** (supra), has held that ‘out-of- turn’ cause emphatically hearings injustice to other litigants. Deviation from the seniority, on the basis of the date of filing, shall be permitted only in exceptional cases and for genuine reasons. Merely because a litigant has the means or resources to approach 6 OP(C) No.1152 of 2023 this Court, with a prayer to expedite his case, he shall not be permitted to jump the queue or steal a march over other litigants, and get an undue advantage. 9. On an overall consideration of the pleadings and the principles laid down in the aforecited precedents, I do not find any extra-ordinary circumstances or pressing reasons to exercise the power of superintendence of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to direct the court below to expeditiously dispose of the suit in question. There are no justifiable grounds made out in the original petition, to direct the out of turn disposal of the said suit, and upset the apple cart of the suits already listed for trial before the court below, where there is a huge backlog of suits and applications. Hence, this Court leaves it to the absolute discretion and wisdom of the court below to decide, whether the present suit is to be disposed of in precedence to older pending matters. It would be upto the petitioner to move the court below by filing an application, seeking for an out-of-turn disposal of the suit. If such an application is filed, the court below 7 OP(C) No.1152 of 2023 shall consider the same as per the principles laid down in **Shiju Joy** and **Prema Joy** (supra). With the above observations, the original petition is dismissed. SD/- sks/25.7.2023 **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** 8 OP(C) No.1152 of 2023 ## **`APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1152/2023`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1THE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S NO. 113/2022 IN THE FILES OF HON'BLE MUNSIFF COURT, SASTAMCOTTAH Exhibit P2THE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 26.07.2022 Exhibit P3THE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN WP(C) NO. 10563/2022 DATED 15.06.2022 ```