IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2010 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 3428 of 2010(O) ------------------------- OS.410/2008 of PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT-I,KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- LEELA ELATHUKATTIL, D/O. APPU, AGED 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT ELATHUKATTIL, ELATHUR AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAMKUMAR SRI.ANITHA RAMKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KALATHUMTHODI RAJEVN, S/O. RARICHAN, AGED 37 YEARS, ELATHUR AMSOM & DESOM KOZHIKODE TALUK. 2. KALATHUMTHODI SHAJI, S/O. RARICHAN AGED 35 YEARS, ELATHUR AMSOM & DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 3. KATTUNGAL DINESAN, S/O. RAMANKUTTY, AGED 56 YEARS, ELATHUR AMSOM & DESOM OF KOZHIKODE TALUK. 4. KATTUNGAL BIJU, S/O. BALAN AGED 32 YEARS ELATHUR AMSOM & DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO.3428/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT PRESENTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT -I, KOZHIKODE INOS 410/2008 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE DEFENDANTS IN OS 410/2008 EXT.P3 TRUE COPIES OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION OF IA NO.4184/09 IN OS 410/2008 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PTITIONER BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT IN OS 410/2008 EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN IA NO.4261/2009 EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE MUNSIFF IN IA 4260/2009 EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE MUNSIFF IN NO.4261/2009 //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.3428 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of May, 2010. JUDGMENT Plaintiff in O.S.No.410 of 2008 of the court of learned Principal Munsiff-I, Kozhikode is the petitioner before me seeking invocation of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to issue direction to the learned Munsiff to issue summons to the additional witness in the list submitted by the petitioner and, to grant such other reliefs as prayed for. Though respondents are served there is no response from them. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner/plaintiff. 2. When the suit was posted for trial in the list, petitioner filed a witness schedule citing one of the witnesses in the defence witness list as his witness and filed I.A.No.4184 of 2009 to issue summons to that witness. On that, learned Munsiff directed petitioner to produce the witness but, petitioner was not able to cause production of the witness. Hence he filed I.A.No.4260 of 2009 to reopen the case for further evidence and I.A.No.4261 of 2009 to reopen I.A.No.4184 of 2009 and issue summons to the witness concerned. Learned Munsiff as per separate order dated 13.01.2010 has dismissed the applications stating that there is no sufficient reason to entertain the applications. 3. Under Order 16 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short, “the Code”) a party desirous of obtaining any summons for attendance of the witness shall file in the court an application stating therein the purpose for which the WP(C) No.3428/2010 2 witness is proposed to be summoned. That requirement is satisfied by I.A.No.4184 of 2009 where petitioner has requested that summons may be issued to the witness concerned for examination on his side. It is not disputed that the witness required to be summoned appears as witness in the defence witness list as well. In the circumstances, learned Munsiff ought to have allowed I.A.Nos.4260 and 4261 of 2009 and issued summons to the witness concerned. Dismissal of the applications is not for cogent reason and hence cannot be sustained. Resultantly this Writ Petition is allowed. Impugned orders are set aside. Those applications will stand allowed. Learned Munsiff shall issue summons to the witness concerned. I.A.No.4301 of 2010 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks