IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 18TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 25332 of 2009(R) -------------------------- OP.311/2007 of FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- RENJITH,S/O.VARGHESE,EERALIL HOUSE, "WHITE HOUSE",NORTH PARUR,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.K.GIRIJA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- MS.GRACE THIBIN, D/O.T.T.ZACHARIA, "THE ROSE BED",THOLATH HOUSE,PAZHANJI.P.O, KUNNAMKULAM,THRISSUR DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.(C).No.25332 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of September 2009 J U D G M E N T Basant,J Parties to this petition are spouses. The petitioner/husband has filed an application for divorce. That petition was filed as early as in 2007. The petitioner came to this court earlier for a direction for time bound early disposal of that old matter. Directions were given. The time stipulated is already over. Trial has commenced; but the same has not been completed yet. In the course of the trial, a document was relied on by the petitioner and that was marked as Ext.X1. The signatory of that document was examined and the document was admitted to be proved by such person/signatory. In the course of cross-examination of the said witness by the respondent, according to the petitioner, it came out that the signatory to the certificate had not directly conducted the relevant tests. The petitioner wanted to prove the document strictly. The petitioner, therefore, filed an application for examination of two persons, who had conducted the necessary tests on the basis of which the said certificate Ext.X1 was issued. That petition stands dismissed by Ext.P6 order which reads as follows: W.P.C No.25332/09 2 “Heard. Doctor is already examined. Medical Report is also marked. I find no scope for allowing the petition. Prayer disallowed.” 2. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. The short contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the court below had not applied its mind to the nature of the request made and had not answered the specific request. The court below may be directed to dispose of I.A.No.3613 of 2009 afresh. Ext.P6 order may be set aside. This is the short request of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. In the course of admission, when the matter was heard, it occurred to us that another petition in the same case had earlier been disposed of ex parte by us. That petition was dismissed in limini. That is by order dated 25/6/2009 in W.P.C.No.17674 of 2008. We have gone through that order. We find merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The court below does not appear to have adverted to the crucial circumstance that the person through whom the medical report stands admitted and marked, is not really the person who had conducted the necessary tests. The court below was certainly obliged to consider that aspect and take an appropriate action. In this view of the matter, we are satisfied that the impugned order Ext.P6 deserves to be set aside and I.A.No.3613 of 2009 deserves to be disposed of afresh. W.P.C No.25332/09 3 4. In the nature of the history of this case and in the light of the time bound direction were earlier issued, we are satisfied that it is not necessary to wait for issue and return of notice to the respondent. This petition can be allowed. The interest of the respondent will not in any way be affected as the court below is to be directed to dispose of I.A.No.3613 of 2009 afresh after giving notice to the respondent. 5. This writ petition is, in these circumstances, allowed. The impugned order Ext.P6 (order dated 28/8/2009 in I.A.No.3613 of 2009) is set aside. The learned Judge of the Family Court is directed to pass fresh orders in I.A.No.3613 of 2009. Needless to say, the court below has to pass a speaking order after hearing both sides. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the time stipulated by this court earlier has already elapsed, there has been no disposal in compliance with the said directions and not even extension of time has been prayed for. Registry shall verify and put up the earlier order with orders of extension, if any. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge W.P.C No.25332/09 4 W.P.C No.25332/09 5 W.P.C No.25332/09 6 R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 29/07/2009