IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1932 OP(C).No. 688 of 2010(O) ------------------------ OS.210/2009 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,PARAVUR .................... PETITIONER: ------------------------------ MINI MARTIN,AGED 37 YEARS,W/O.MARTIN, ELANJICKAL HOUSE,KARIYARA,OPPOSITE FMCT SCHOOL, MANAKKAPPADY, PARUR TALUK-683511 BY ADV. SRI.M.L.SAJEEVAN SRI.JAISON JOSEPH SRI.M.N.SANJITH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. M.J.THOMAS,AGED 78 YEARS, S/O.VAREED OUSEPH,MAMPILLY HOUSE, EASTERN STREET, NEAR CHURCH,NJARACKAL-682505 2. JOSEPH THOMAS, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.M.J.THOMAS,MAMPILLY HOUSE, THATTAMPADY KARA, KARUMALOOR VILLAGE,PARUR TALUK-683511 3. JONSON THOMAS,AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.M.J.THOMAS,MAMPILLY HOUSE,NJARACKAL PO, KOCHI,REP.BY HIS AGENT JOSEPH THOMAS.682505 4. MARTIN THOMAS,AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.M.J.THOMAS,MAMPILLY HOUSE, KADALIKAD.-683255 5. PAUL THOMAS,AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.M.J.THOMAS,MAMPILLY HOUSE, NJARACKAL PO,KOCHI.682505 THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P(C).No.688 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 12th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT Defendant No.1 in O.S.No.210 of 2009 of the court of learned Principal Sub Judge, North Paravur is the petitioner before me. The suit is to set aside a settlement deed and for recovery of certain amount. Petitioner is the daughter of respondent No.1 and sister of other respondents. Petitioner admits that respondent No.1 is congenitally deaf and dumb. For the examination of respondent No.1 as witness, respondent No.1 filed an application (Ext.P3 dated 04-11-2010) to appoint an interpreter. That application was allowed on the same day and the interpreter suggested by respondent No.1 (Principal of Higher Secondary School for deaf, Kottayam) was appointed. Court also stated that defendant No.1 is at liberty to produce any other interpreter (obviously on her side). Learned counsel contends that the order is bad for several reasons; firstly, the court did not conduct an enquiry as to the capacity of respondent No.1 to read and write; secondly, appointment of interpreter should have been from a panel produced by both sides and; thirdly, petitioner was not given an opportunity to prefer objection by Ext.P3, application. O.P(C).No.688 of 2010 : 2 : 2. It is seen that Ext.P3, application was filed on 04-11-2010 and the same day learned Sub Judge has passed the impugned order. True, no time was given to the petitioner to file objection as the application was allowed on the same day it was filed. Court below could have given an opportunity to the petitioner to file her counter rather than allowing the application the same day it was filed. But, it is not disputed by petitioner that respondent No.1 is deaf and dumb. According to the learned counsel, respondent No.1 has in previous proceedings and in the same suit filed affidavit on his own and hence it is evident that he can read and write. Therefore examination in chief of respondent No.1 could have been by way of affidavit. Assuming so, for cross examination that device cannot be adopted and the assistance of an interpreter is required. Hence I do not find reason to interfere for the reason that no opportunity to file counter was given. I do not also think that it was necessary for the court to conduct an enquiry whether respondent No.1 is able to read and write. 3. So far as the contention that panels were not called for and name suggested by respondent No.1 was accepted is concerned, it is seen that interest of petitioner is well protected by the learned Sub Judge by directing that she is at liberty to produce an interpreter of her choice. If petitioner is able to produce an O.P(C).No.688 of 2010 : 3 : interpreter as permitted by the court and if the interpreter appointed by court is not interpreting the expressions being made by respondent No.1 in the correct manner, it is open to the interpreter produced by the petitioner to point out that matter to the court in which case the court has the occasion, authority and power to pass appropriate orders in the matter. In that view of the matter I do not find reason to interfere with the impugned order. 4. Learned counsel submits that the case is coming up for trial this day and petitioner was not able to produce an interpreter on her side. Since I find that the order was passed on 04-11-2010 and considering the submission of learned counsel, I direct that examination of respondent No.1 shall stand adjourned to a day after two weeks from this day so that in the meantime, it is open to the petitioner to produce an interpreter on her side. Resultantly this petition is disposed of directing learned Sub Judge, North Paravur to adjourn examination of respondent No.1 to a day after two weeks from this day. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-