IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2011 / 1ST POUSHA 1933 OP(C).No. 3547 of 2011(O) ------------------------- ELECTION O.P.NO.12/2010 of MUNSIFF COURT, CHALAKUDY .................... PETITIONER (S): -------------------- ANANTHAN @ ANANDAN, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.PALANY, WORKER, TATA TEA LIMITED, UPPER DIVISION, MALAKKAPARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- MUTHU @ PAUL MUTHU, ESTATE WORKERS, VII/118A,(VI/70), TATA TEA LIMITED, UPPER DIVISION, MALAKKAPARA P.O., THRISSUR-680 721. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(C)NO.3547/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXHIBITS P1.TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTION OP 12/2010 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT,CHALAKKUDY. EXHIBITS P2.TRUE COPY OF THE MARRIAGE REGISTER OF CSI CHURCH VALPARA. EXHIBITS P3.TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN IA NO.1973/2011 AND THE AFFIDAVIT AND LIST OF THE WITNESSES. EXHIBITS P4.TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA 1973/2011 IN LE.OP NO.12/2010 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, CHALAKKUDY. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL //TRUE COPY// THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.3547 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2011. JUDGMENT Respondent is served but there is no response. 2. Petitioner has challenged election of respondent in Election O.P.No.12 of 2010 of the court of learned Munsiff, Chalakkudy. According to the petitioner, though respondent is not a member of the Scheduled Caste, proclaiming himself to be a member of Scheduled Caste respondent contested the election and won from a ward reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates. Petitioner alleges that respondent is a Christian by name “Christunatha” and got married to one Christina at CSI Church, Valpara in Tamil Nadu on 08.02.2002. Petitioner filed I.A.No.1954 of 2010 to summon marriage register from the Church as above stated and examine the Vicar. That application was allowed and the register was produced. Petitioner wanted to examine certain witnesses who are said to have attended the (alleged) marriage of respondent. For that purpose, petitioner filed I.A.No.1973 of 2011 to re-open the case as evidence was closed on 17.10.2011. The application was dismissed by Ext.P3, order dated 27.10.2011. The said order is under challenge. Learned counsel submits that to prove the marriage pleaded by petitioner it is necessary to OP(C)No.3547/2011 2 examine those who attended that marriage and it is for the said purpose that petitioner filed I.A.No.1973 of 2011 and produced the witness schedule citing three witnesses to be examined. 3. Learned Munsiff having allowed I.A.No.1954 of 2010 and summoned the register from the Church, obviously, to prove the case of petitioner that respondent, in the name of 'Christunatha' has married 'Christina' should have allowed petitioner to examine the witnesses who are said to have attended that marriage. 4. On going through Ext.P3, it is seen that three witnesses are cited on the side of petitioner. Learned counsel submits that petitioner wants only those witnesses to be examined and that no other witness is required to be examined whatever be the fate of summons issued and served on the witnesses cited in the witness schedule dated 18.10.2011 or the evidence they may give. Since the election petition is of the year, 2010 and its expeditious disposal is required, the said submission of learned counsel is recorded. Having regard to the circumstances stated above, I am inclined to interfere with Ext.P4, order. OP(C)No.3547/2011 3 Resultantly this Original Petition is allowed. Ext.P4, order dated 27.10.2011 on I.A.No.1973 of 2011 in Election O.P.No.12 of 2010 is set aside and that application will stand allowed. Petitioner is permitted to examine all or any of the witnesses cited in the list dated 18.10.2011. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks