S.Sudevan vs Sreekumar
2021 Latest Caselaw 18077 Ker

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                  PRESENT
                     THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
           Friday, the 3rd day of September 2021 / 12th Bhadra, 1943
                             OP(C) NO. 1756 OF 2017
OS 442/2013 OF II ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
 PETITIONER:

      S.SUDEVAN, S/O SREEDHARA PANICKER, UDHAYAGIRI,THIRUPURAM,
      THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

    BY ADV SRI.R.GOPAN

RESPONDENT:

      SREEKUMAR, S/O BHASKARA PANICKER, VISHNU BHAVAN,THIRUPURAM,
      NEYYATTINKARA. 695121.


     THIS OP(C) HAVING COME UP FOR ORDERS ON 3.9.2021, UPON PERUSING THE
LETTER DATED 18.1.2021 AND 24.6.2021 OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF II,
NEYYATINKARA AND THIS COURT'S JUDGMENT DATED 5.6.2017 IN THE OP(C), THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING;




                                                                    (P.T.O)
                            V.G.ARUN, J.
                       -----------------------
                   O.P.(C) No.1756 of 2017
               ------------------------------------
           Dated this the 3rd day of September, 2021

                           ORDER

By the judgment dated 05.06.2017 this court had

directed the Munsiff -II, Neyyattinkara to dispose

O.S.No.442 of 2013 within six months from the date of

production of copy of the judgment. Later, on the request

of the learned Munsiff the time limit was extended by six

months from 10.08.2018 as a last chance. Thereafter, by

letter dated 18.01.2021 the Additional Munsiff had

sought further extension, wherein no orders were passed

by this Court. Again by letter dated 24.06.2021 the

jurisdictional Munsiff has sought extension by a further

period of eight months.

2. Sitting in this jurisdiction I have come across

frequent instances of judicial officers seeking extension

of the time stipulated by this Court. Considering the

prevailing situation and the restricted functioning of O.P.(C) No.1756 of 2017

courts it may not be possible to adhere with the time limit.

At the same time, it is disturbing to note that at least in

some cases, the request for extension is made six months

or even one year after expiry of the time. The Registrar

(Judicial) may look into this aspect and do the needful.

Considering the request, the time limit is extended by

a further period of six months as a last chance.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN JUDGE scs

03-09-2021 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar