SMT VIJAYAKUMARI v. SMT SUJATHA S RAJ

- 4 -

2. This petition is filed by the petitioner, who is respondent No.10 in FDP.No.6/2021 seeking for the following relief:

"WHEREFORE, the petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court may be please to pass necessary orders

a) direct the Hon'ble Principal Small causes court, Mysuru to dispose of the case in FDP No.6/2021 early in accordance with law, order sheet in FDP No.6/2021 is at Annexure-E.

b) direct the Hon'ble Principal Small causes court, Mysuru to dispose the case IA.No.5 filed in FDP.No.6/2021 by the Petitioner under Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act R/W Section 151 of CPC vide at Annexure-C early in accordance with law.

c) pass other suitable orders under the circumstances of the case as it deems fit by this Hon'ble Court by allowing this petition, with costs, in the interest of justice and equity."

3. This Court does not find any need to issue notice to the respondents, as no adverse order against the

- 5 -

respondents is passed. This Court is inclined to direct the Principal Small Causes Court, Mysuru to dispose of the FDP.No.6/2021 expeditiously.

4. The petitioner is none other than respondent No.10 in FDP.No.6/2021, which is filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein and preliminary decree is passed in O.S.No.822/2004 by the Small Causes Court (Sr.Dn.), Mysuru.

5. It is submitted that in RA.No.1306/2009 a slight modification has been made in the order passed by the trial Court. Thereafter, respondent Nos.1 to 3 have filed FDP No.6/2021 before the trial Court.

6. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the FDP proceedings are being protracted and prolonged for one or the other reason by the respondents. Hence, the petitioner has filed this present petition seeking a direction to the trial Court to expedite the proceedings in FDP.No.6/2021.

- 6 -

7. Apparently, the suit is of the year 2004. Thereafter, the appeal is filed, which has culminated in the Regular Second Appeal in RSA.Nos.2787/2011 connected with 92/2012. Therefore, the rights have been crystallized and the Court has come to the conclusion that the order in Regular Second Appeal has not been questioned. Therefore, in view of the unnecessary adjournments and the petitioner being aged 71 years and not having any source of income to eke out her livelihood, the present petition is filed.

8. It is also contended by learned counsel for petitioner that respondent Nos.4 to 9 are enjoying the suit schedule properties by receiving an enormous amount of rent arising out of the suit schedule properties, which is not paid to the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition.

9. Therefore, I do not find any legal impediment to issue a direction to dispose of the petition in an expeditious manner by the trial Court, as the petitioner is

- 7 -

aged 71 years who is respondent No.10 in the FDP proceedings. The suit was initially filed for partition. If the petitioner is not able to enjoy the fruits of the decree even after reaching the age of 71 years and the suit having been filed almost a decade back, then it must be noted that the justice delivery system would fail if expeditious disposal is not ordered to dispose of the FDP in accordance with law, so that the petitioner can enjoy the fruits of the decree.

10. Under the circumstances, without going into the merits of the matter, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of this petition by following directions:

ORDER

i. This petition is disposed of;

ii. The Principal Small Causes Court, Mysuru, is hereby directed to dispose of the

FDP.No.6/2021 in an expeditious manner within one year from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;

- 8 -

iii. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the matter; Ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)

JUDGE

CPN

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23

CT: BHK