IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2010 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1932 AS.No. 87 of 1999() --------------------------- OS.238/1993 of SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... APPELLANT(S): 2ND DEFENDANT ---------------------- RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI SATHEESH LAL ALIAS KRISHNAKUMAR, S/O. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, PULINILKUNNATHIL VEEDU, AYROOR MURI, AYROOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.BABU CHERUKARA SRI.JOSHY JOSEPH SMT.ROSAMMA BABU RESPONDENT(S): PLAINTIFF/IST DEFENDANT -------------------------- 1. LEELA SATHISH, PADINJARE PUTHUSSERRIL VEEDU, KUMARAMPEROOR VADAKKAKARA MURI, VADASSERIKARA VILLAGE. 2. SANKARA PILLAI RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI PULINILKUNNATHIL VEEDU, AYROOR MURI, AYROOR VILLAGE (DECEASED). ADV. SRI.K.GEORGE VARGHESE KANNANTHANAM SRI.C.G.VASUDEVAN NAIR THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP. NO.705/1999 IN AS. NO.87/1999 DISMISSED 11/06/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = A.S. NO. 87 OF 1999 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 11th day of June, 2010. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree passed by the Subordinate Judge, Pathanamthitta in O.S.238/93. The suit is one for realisation of the amount, i.e. Rs.32,000/- given as the share as well as value of 17 sovereigns of gold alleged to be taken by the husband given to the wife at the time of marriage. On the other hand, the defendant had denied the receipt of any amount and had also denied about the taking of any ornament by him for his sister's marriage. 2. I find an extremely difficult situation in this case because the 2nd defendant who is the husband has not been cross examined at all in this case. An application was filed for A.S. No. 87 OF 1999 -2- permitting him to be cross-examined and it was allowed. But it appears that he was present on the next day and he was not cross-examined. Thereafter again it is recorded that he was not present and no steps were taken. It was the duty of the witness to come before the Court to face the cross-examination. I am not blaming either the plaintiff nor the defendant for the reason nothing is clear from the trial Court records what had transpired in that Court and therefore it is desirable that DW1 is cross- examined so that the Court will have some idea about the whole thing. I am not expressing anything on the merits of this case and I set aside the judgment and decree of the Court below and remit the case back to the trial court for fresh consideration after permitting the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions. A.S. No. 87 OF 1999 -3- It is made clear that the 2nd defendant shall make himself available for cross-examination on the date fixed by the Court and thereafter if the parties want any other evidence that may also be permitted. Thereafter the Court below is directed to dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Court below on 22.7.2010. Being a very old matter the trial court shall see that an expeditious disposal is done. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/- A.S. No. 87 OF 1999 -4- M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = A.S. No. 87 OF 1999 = = = = = = = = = = = J U D G M E N T 11th June, 2010.