IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2008 / 15TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 23332 of 2008(C) -------------------------- OS.322/2005 of M.C.,VADAKKANCHERRY .................... PETITIONER: ------------ KARAPPAN, AGED 61, S/O.PLAKUNDIL RAMAN, PALLIKAL DESOM, NEDUMPURA VILLAGE, TALAPPILLY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. SIVASANKARAN, S/O.MUTHASSAN THODI SANKU, PALLIKAL DESOM, NEDUMPURA VILLAGE , TALAPPILLY TALUK. 2. SAKUNTHALA, W/O. SIVASANKARAN, PALLIKAL DESOM, NEDUMPURA VILLAGE , TALAPPILLY TALUK. 3. KARAPPAN, S/O.PLAKUNDIL RAMAN PALLIKAL DESOM, NEDUMPURA VILLAGE , TALAPPILLY TALUK. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) NO. 23332 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 6th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT This petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenging Ext.P5 order passed by learned Munsiff, Vadakkanchery in I.A.230 of 2008 in O.S. 322 of 2005. Petitioner is the plaintiff and respondents the defendants. Ext.P3 is the copy of I.A.230 of 2008. It shows the interrogatories sought to be answered are facts which are clear from the pleadings and judgments in the previous suits. Learned Munsiff, under Ext.P5 order, dismissed the application holding that answers sought to be elicited by serving interrogatories are available in the copies of the judgment and written statement of the previous litigations and in such circumstances there is no necessity to serve the interrogatories as sought for. 2. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for petitioner is that though the answers could be gathered from the copies of judgment or written statement or other pleadings, WP(C)23332/08 2 petitioner needs to ensure the present stand of the respondents and whether they have a different case than the one taken in the earlier litigations and in such circumstances, learned Munsiff should have allowed the application. 3. On going through Ext.P5 order, I do not find any illegality or irregularity warranting interference in exercise of the powers of this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India. Whether first defendant is a party to the suit and whether he has filed a written statement and whether he has made any admission in the previous suits can be proved by production of earlier pleadings and the judgment and there is no necessity to serve interrogatories as sought for. Writ petition is dismissed. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE Okb/-