IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2009 / 8TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 21393 of 2009(O) --------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20/07/2009 IN IA.1146 /2009 IN OS.304/2007 of SUB COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- HAMDULLA HANEEF, S/O.HANEEF SAIT, THAIPARAMBIL HOUSE, CIVIL STATION WARD, ALAPPUZHA,. BY ADV. MR.HARISH R. MENON MR.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ SUNIL DUTT, S/O.PALANIYAPPAN, LEELA NIVAS, MULLAAKAL, ALAPPUZHA. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.21393 OF 2009 (O) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: i. to set aside Ext.P14 order passed in I.A.No.1146/2009 in O.S.No.304/2007 on the file of the Sub Court, Alappuzha in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Honourable Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. ii. to pass an order allowing I.A.No.1146/2009 in O.S.No.304/2007 on the file of the Sub Court, Alappuzha in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Honourable Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. iii. to grant the petitioner such other appropriate reliefs as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper on the facts and in the circumstances of the case; and iv. to award the petitioner the cost of this writ petition. WPC.21393/09 2 2. Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.304 of 2007 on the file of the Sub Court, Alappuzha. The above suit was filed by the respondent claiming arrears of rent and other sums due towards electricity and water charges etc. from the defendant who admittedly was in occupation of a building as his tenant. Petitioner/defendant resisted the claim contending that two employees of the respondent had collected the rent due issuing receipts. To substantiate that plea of discharge, he wanted to prove the receipts purported to have been issued by some employees, and for that purpose, summons to them was applied for. The present petition filed by the defendant in connection with the plea of discharge canvassed by him is the third one before this Court. In W.P.(C).No.34607/2008, which was disposed by judgment dated 27.11.2008 entertaining his request and the submissions made by him that one of the two persons alleged to be the employees of the respondent need alone be examined as the other one was not available this Court issued directions to the court below for issuing warrant against that person who was cited as a witness to secure his presence for trial. Pursuant thereto, it is the admitted case that that witness was arrested, produced before the court and examined. Later, another writ petition was filed before this WPC.21393/09 3 Court as W.P.(C).No.6600/2009. The witness arrested and produced disputed the signature in the receipts. An application was moved before the court for sending over the receipts with the admitted signatures of that witness for forensic examination, which was declined by the court below. The above writ petition was filed to reverse that order to have the examination so canvassed. That writ petition was found devoid of any merit and was dismissed by judgment dated 15.6.2009. While dismissing that writ petition, it was observed that the defendant can very well prove his plea of discharge by other methods and the attempt made seeking for forensic examination of the receipts with the signature of the witness (DW4) was not bona fide, but intended to prolong and delay the litigation. After dismissal of the writ petition, the petitioner again moved another petition before the court below producing some photos to reopen the evidence and to recall PW1 and DW4 for further examination. That petition was dismissed by the learned Sub Judge vide Ext.P14 oder. Propriety and correctness of that order is impeached in the present writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. WPC.21393/09 4 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made and considering the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondent is necessary, and, hence, it is dispensed with. Ext.P13 is the copy of the application moved by the defendant seeking reopening of the evidence to examine the plaintiff PW1 and the witness DW4 and also for the examination of the process server who was deputed by the court to serve notice on the witness. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while dismissing the previous writ petition by judgment dated 15.6.2009, this Court has observed that the plea of discharge can be proved by other methods, and so much so, Ext.P12 application was moved. I am not impressed by the submissions of the counsel. It is evident that the petitioner/defendant is wasting the time of the court by filing petitions one after the other, on one pretext or another to prolong and protract the litigation. The attempt of the petitioner to reopen the evidence which was closed much earlier, that too, by filing a petition like Ext.P12 where under, no particulars were made as to what purpose is to be served by recalling DW4 and further examination of PW1 and DW4 as WPC.21393/09 5 rightly found by the learned Sub Judge is unworthy of any merit. A fresh witness list filed to examine the process server who went over to serve witness summons on DW4, is nothing but a tactic to delay the trial of the suit. Any such attempt by any of the parties to the suit or proceedings should be taken serious notice by the court and appropriate orders imposing heavy terms should follow to curtail such practice and not mere dismissal of such application. The writ petition is devoid of any merit, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp