IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2009 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 16253 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02/06/2009 IN IA.1212/2009 IN OS.800/1999 of ADDL.M.C.,KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS-PLAINTIFFS: ------------------------------------- 1. K.N.DAMODARAN NAMBOOTHIRI, KIZHUPURATHU,PANACHIKADU. 2. SREEJITH,KIZHUPURATHU,PANACHIKADU. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE SMT.ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM SMT.P.J.JINIMOL SRI.S.SARATH SMT.P.K.THASLEENA SMT.AFSANA ASHRAF RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS-DEFENDANTS: ------------------------------------- 1. DAMODARAN PURUSHOTHAMAN NAMBOOTHIRI, KIZHUPURATHU ILLOM,RESIDING AT MUNDACKAL PALACE,KULANADA P.O.,PANDALAM. 2. NARAYANAN VASUDEVAN NAMBOOTHIRI, ABHAYAM KANIMANGALAM,THRISSUR. 3. NARAYANAN NEELAKANDAN NAMBOOTHIRI, PAZHAYAKARINATTU HOUSE,PANACHICADU, KUZHIMATTOM P.O.,PANACHICKADU,KOTTAYAM. 4. NARAYANAN NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI, KARINATTU ILLOM,PANACHICADU, KUZHIMATTOM P.O.,KOTTAYAM. 5. VASUDEVAN KIRAN, S/O.VASUDEVAN NAMBOOTHIRI, ABHAYAM,KANIMANGALAM,THRISSUR. 6. NARAYANAN VASUDEVAN NAMBOOTHIRI, KAIMUKKU ILLOM,PANACHICADU, KUZHIMATTOM P.O.,KOTTAYAM. WPC.16253/09 7. NARAYANAN NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI, KAIMUKKU ILLOM,KUZHIMATTOM P.O., PANACHICADU,KOTTAYAM. 8. VASUDEVAN NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI, KAIMUKKU ILLOM,KUZHIMATTOM P.O., PANACHICADU,KOTTAYAM. 9. VASUDEVAN SREEKUMAR,S/O.VASUDEVAN, KAIMUKKU ILLOM,KUZHIMATTOM P.O., PANACHICADU,KOTTAYAM. 10. NARAYANAN NAVEEN, S/O.NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI, KAIMUKKU ILLOM,KUZHIMATTOM P.O., PANACHICADU,KOTTAYAM. 11. NARAYANAN PRAVEEN, S/O.NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI, KAIMUKKU ILLOM,KUZHIMATTOM P.O., PANACHICADU,KOTTAYAM. 12. SREEDEVIKUTTY,KIZHUPURATHU MADATHIL, KUZHIMATTOM P.O.,PANACHICADU VILLAGE & KARA. 13. PANACHICADU DEVASWAM,REP.BY PURUSHOTHAMAN NAMBOOTHIRI,PRESIDENT, PANACHICADU DEVASWAM,ORRANMAYOGAM, PANACHICADU,KOTTAYAM. 14. K.UMADEVI,THURUTHEL MADOM, OLAMATTOM,THODUPUZHA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.16253 OF 2009 (O) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs: i. to call for the records resulting in Ext.P4 order and set aside the same to allow Ext.P2 application; ii. to pass such other orders, interlocutory or otherwise, which are deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice; and iii. to allow this writ petition with costs. 2. Petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.800/1999 on the file of the Additional Munisiff's Court, Kottayam. After recording the evidence, the case now stands posted for arguments. The petitioners, who are the plaintiffs in the suit WPC.16253/09 2 moved Ext.P2 application for reopening of the evidence so as to examine one more witness and also to recall PW2 to mark a document. The request of the plaintiffs was rejected by the defendants filing written objection. Ext.P3 is the copy of the objection. The learned Munsiff, after hearing both sides, dismissed Ext.P2 application expressing a view that it is only a dilatory tactic to prolong the litigation and delay the disposal of the suit. Impeaching the correctness of that order, petitioners have filed the above writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court vested under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Suit has been filed for framing a scheme for the administration of a Dewaswam namely “Panachicadu Devaswam”. The learned counsel submitted that Ext.P2 application was filed immediately after closing of the evidence as early as on 21.5.2009 and the documents sought to be exhibited in evidence after recalling PW2 had already been produced in the court but omitted to be marked. Additional witness to be WPC.16253/09 3 examined is stated to be a thanthri and his evidence, it is submitted, is relevant for adjudication of the issues involved in the suit. The defendants, in their objections had contended that the temple is having its own thanthri and the opinion of another thanthri is not of much significance in respect of the rights and rituals to be performed therein. Whatever be the merit of the case canvassed by the respective sides, it is seen the suit was instituted as early as in 1999 and recording of evidence was over much earlier. After going through Ext.P4 order passed by the learned Munsiff, I find no impropriety to interfere with that order taking note the suit was instituted a decade ago and that it came up in the list more than once. Writ petition is devoid of any merit, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. -------------------------------------------------------- CRL.R.P.NO. OF 2006 () --------------------------------------------------------- O R D E R --------------------------------------------------------- 23rd March, 2009