IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2008 / 4TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 19160 of 2008(E) -------------------------- OS.50/2007 OF MUNSIFF COURT, PONNANI .................... PETITIONER: ----------------- UNMER, AGED 70 YEARS, VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KANJIRAMUKKU, PULIKKADAV, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN SRI.P.K.KHALEEMUDHEEN RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, MARANCHERRY GRAMA PANCHAYAT,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED THROUGH THE GOVERNMENT PLEADER, HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. SMT. BINDU R. FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------------------ W.P(C). NO. 19160 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 25th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the plaintiff and respondent the defendant in O.S. 50 of 2007 on the file of Munsiff Court, Ponnani. After evidence was recorded, petitioner filed an application to reopen the suit, along with a prayer to receive a document as evidence. Learned Munsiff, under Ext.P6 order, dismissed the petition stating that petitioner did not explain the reason why the document was not produced earlier. It is challenged in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner was heard. 3. Ext.P6 order shows that petition to reopen the evidence was dismissed on the ground that petitioner did not show any reason for non production of the document sought to be produced, earlier. Though Ext.P5 affidavit WPC19160/08 2 produced by the petitioner in support of the application is filed, it does not show any reason why counter affidavit in writ petition 10576 of 2006, which is sought to be received as evidence, was not filed earlier. In such circumstances I do not find any illegality in Ext.P6 order warranting interference in exercise of the powers of this court under Article 227 of constitution of India. Though learned counsel appearing for petitioner argued that necessity of production of the counter affidavit was only because of production of Ext.P3 later, such a reason is not mentioned in Ext.P5 affidavit. In such circumstances I do not find any reason to interfere with Ext.P6 order. Writ petition is dismissed accordingly. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE Okb/- WPC19160/08 3