This is a petition seeking a direction to the Munsiff's Court, Vatakara to take up O.S. 63 of 2007 and dispose it of as expeditiously as possible.
2. Shorn off unnecessary details, the suit was initially dismissed by the trial court which was confirmed by the lower appellate court and the plaintiff brought the matter before this Court in R.S.A. 1065 of 2012. This Court allowed the appeal as under:
“(i) Judgment and decree of learned Sub Judge, Vadakara in A.S. No. 34 of 2009 and of learned Munsiff, Vadakara in O.S. No. 63 of 2007 are set aside.
(ii) It is found that the plaint A schedule in the state it is now (including the structures therein) is entitled to get natural support from the plaint B schedule and that the respondents are bound to provide such support to the plaint A schedule in its present state.
(iii) The undertaking made by the respondents that they will provide sufficient lateral support to the plaint A schedule in its present state by constructing granite wall in the plaint B Schedule is accepted and recorded.
(iv) The trial court is directed to appoint an Expert and get a report as to the nature and extent of support required to be provided to the plaint A schedule.
(v) Based on that Expert opinion and after hearing both sides, the trial court shall pass a decree directing the respondents to provide lateral support from the plaint B schedule to the plaint A schedule.
(vi) The trial court shall also decide on the prayer for prohibitory injunction.
(vii) The trial court is directed to expedite its proceeding considering the grievance of the respondents that they want to put up building in the plaint B schedule.
(viii) Parties are directed to maintain the present condition of the plaint A and B schedules until further orders are passed by the trial court.
.......... ”
3. Even though there is a direction in the judgment of this Court that the trial of the suit to be expedited, even after all steps are completed, no effective steps are taken by the court below to comply with the direction. It is true that there is no time limit fixed by this Court while remanding the matter, but certainly this Court directed the court below to expedite the disposal of the suit. In the light of the difficulties faced by the defendants even after the expert filed his report, the matter is lying idle and the petitioner is put to irreparable loss and injury.
4. In the light of the order that is proposed to be passed in this Original Petition, notice to the respondent appears to be unnecessary.
In the result, this Original Petition is allowed. There will be a direction to the Munsiff;s Court, Vadakara to take up O.S. 63 of 2007 pending before it and dispose it of in accordance with law and in the light of the remand order passed by this Court as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.