IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2009 / 5TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 20689 of 2009(O) --------------------------------------- OS.70/2004 of SUB COURT,NEYYATTINKARA .................... PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- SUJATHA, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.CHELLASWAMY, THENGUVILA, KURMATHUR KONAM, KUZHITHURAYIL PO, KANYAKUMARI DIST. BY ADV. MR.T.N.SURESH MR.ROY THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ P.S. JOHNSINGH, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.RAJAYYAN, CHRISTU RAJA COTTAGE, MEKODE, KALIYIKKAVILA, VILAVAMKODE, KANYAKUMARI DIST. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C).No.20689 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of July 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGEMENT The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs. i) Call for the entire records relating to Exts. P1 to P5 from the Hon'ble Sub Court, Neyyattinkara. ii) Direct the Hon'ble Sub Court, Neyyattinkara to consider Ext.P5 and pass orders as expeditiously. iii) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case. W.P.(C).No.20689 OF 2009 Page numbers 2. Petitioner is the defendant in O.S 70/2004 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Neyyattinkara. Suit is one for specific performance of an agreement of sale. An application moved by the petitioner after closing of the trial to reopen the evidence was turned down by the learned Sub Judge. That application has not been considered by the learned Munsiff is the grievance canvassed in the petition claiming the above mentioned reliefs invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. A report was called from the learned Sub Judge as to why the application moved by the petitioner, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P5, has not been disposed of. A report has been received. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note to the facts and circumstances W.P.(C).No.20689 OF 2009 Page numbers presented, I find no notice to the respondents is necessary, and it is dispensed with. 4. The report of the learned Sub Judge reveals that the case was listed for trial on 01/07/2009, and on that day, the plaintiff was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A6 were accepted as evidence. The case was adjourned to the next day and on that day one more witness for the plaintiff as PW2 and the defendant and his witness were examined as DW1 and DW2 and Ext.B1 got marked. Plaintiff, thereafter moved an application for amendment and after hearing both sides it was allowed on terms. Additional written statement was filed by the defendant to the amended plaint and the case was posted for final hearing on 15/07/2009. On that day both sides represented that they are filing argument notes. No argument note was filed by the defendant, but later he moved an application for reopening the evidence to examine one witness and mark a document . Since W.P.(C).No.20689 OF 2009 Page numbers copy of the petition was not served to the other side, the learned Sub Judge reports that no orders were passed on the application and its consideration was adjourned to 29/07/2009 for serving copy and filing of objections. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reopening the evidence is to mark a judgment in a criminal case, which has some relevance in the matter in issue. What ever that be on the facts presented in the light of the report given by the learned Sub Judge I find no merit in the petition. 6. The writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv