IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 3RD ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 27046 of 2009(A) -------------------------- RCP.144/2007 of PRL.M.C.KOZHIKODE-I .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- CHAMAKKALAYIL JAYAPRAKASH, S/O.UNNI,RESIDING AT CHELAVOOR AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SMT.PRABHA R.MENON SRI.M.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- P.MOHANDAS,S/O.P.T.LAZAR,RESIDING IN VENGERI AMSOM DESOM,KOZHIKODE TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------ W.P.(C)No.27046 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 25thday of September, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. In this writ petition under Article 227, the petitioner landlord seeks the following reliefs; i). To set aside the order appended to Ext.P4 application dated 16/9/2009 imposing costs of Rs.1000/- for an adjournment. ii). Pass appropriate orders directing the District Court, Kozhikode to ensure that R.C.P. No.144/2007 pending before the Munsiff Court, Kozhikode – 1 is heard and decided by another Munsiff of similar jurisdiction. 2. At the very outset, Smt.Prabha R.Menon, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petitioner is not pressing for relief No.(ii). The learned counsel submitted that it was a very painful experience for Sri.Krishna Iyyer, learned senior member of the Kozhikode Bar, to see that an application for adjournment on the ground of his illness was allowed by the Rent Control Court only by imposing costs. The learned counsel, WPC.No.27046/2009 2 therefore, requested that the order imposing costs be vacated. According to the learned counsel, the application filed by the tenant for permission to examine some other witness as a substitute for the respondent is pending. The prayer in that application is that affidavit submitted by the respondent in lieu of the chief examination may be eschewed and the affidavit produced along with that application be accepted as the affidavit in lieu of chief examination. According to Smt.Prabha, unless and until the above application is decided by the learned Rent Control Court, it was not proper on the part of the court to have insisted that the landlord's counsel should cross examine the respondent. The respondent is not at all prepared to mount the box and offer himself for cross examination and unless he offers himself for cross examination, it will not be possible for the petitioner's counsel to cross examine her. 3. May be the learned Rent Control Court could have allowed a short adjournment to the petitioner in view of the illness of the senior Advocate, who is appearing for the landlord without imposing costs. But, in this jurisdiction under Article 227, we are not inclined to modify the order Ext.P4 completely. WPC.No.27046/2009 3 At the same time, we feel that there is a point when the petitioner contends that the learned Rent Control Court should dispose of the I.As filed by the tenant ( I.A. Nos. 3063/2009 & 3064/2009) before insisting that the landlord's counsel should cross examine the tenant. We are also inclined to accept the submission of the learned counsel that the party( the petitioner) wants the principal witness to be cross examined by his senior counsel himself. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of at this stage itself issuing the following orders/ directions: Ext.P4 will stand modified to the following extent; i). Cost amount of Rs.1,000/- will stand reduced to Rs.500/-. ii). The RCP will stand adjourned to 22/10/2009. On that day the RCP will be taken up for trial as though the same is in the special list. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE WPC.No.27046/2009 4 dpk