IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2009 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 36359 of 2009(O) -------------------------- O.S.NO.684/2007 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- K. RAJACHANDRAN NAIR, S/O. C.K. KRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 51 YEARS, RESIDINT AT T.C. 28/2729(14) KINCHAN'S PLAZA, KUNNUMPURAM, VANCHIYOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.AYYAPPAN SANKAR SRI.G.SURARSHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DAISY ITTICHERIYA, W/O. K.S. MANOJKUMAR, RESIDING AT FLAT NO. F3 AND F3 (A), KINCHAN'S PLAZA, KUNNUMPURAM, VANCHIYOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. K.S. MANOJKUMAR, S/O. K. SIVADAS, RESIDING AT DO. 3. P. PADMANABHAN NAIR, S/O. R.P. NAIR, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT KINCHAN'S NEAR KURUVIKKADU, VATTIYOORKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. GEETHARANI, W/O. P.PADMANABHAN NAIR, RESIDING AT DO. 5. MINI HARIKUMAR, W/O. S. HARIKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT YAMINI, A-3, PILLAVEETTIL LANE, KESAVADASAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. S. HARIKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT DO.......... WPC.36359/09 7. P. HARIKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, PROPRIETOR FUTURE FUNDATIONS PVT. LTD., RESIDING AT DEVAKI MANIDRAM, SANKAR ROAD, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 8. PRASANNAKUMARA PILLAI, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OWNER AND RESIDENT OF C-1, APARTMENT, VIGNESH PLAZA, KUNNUMPURAM. VANCHIYOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 9. VISHNU NAMBOOTHIRI, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT C-2, APARTMENT, VIGNESH PLAZA, KUNNUMPURAM, VANCHIYOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 10. RANGANATHA SWAMI, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT C-1, APARTMENT, VIGNESH PLAZA, KUNNUMPURAM, VANCHIYOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 11. AYYAPPAN, AGED 55 YEARS, OWNER OF S-2, APARTMENT, VIGNESH PLAZA, KUNNUMPURAM, VANCHIYOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 12. MANOJ MOHAN, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT T-3, APARTMENT, VIGHESH PLAZA, KUNNUMPURAM, VANCHIYOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.36359 OF 2009 (O) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.684 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Munsiff Court - V, Thiruvnanahapuram. Suit is one for setting aside a decree and for other reliefs, and the respondents are the defendants. Suit claim was resisted by the defendants. The trial of the suit is in progress with the recording of the evidence already closed and what remains is only the arguments by the counsel on both sides and its disposal. The contesting defendants adduced only documentary evidence by producing some documents. Petitioner/plaintiff was denied opportunity to challenge the merit of the documents confronting the defendants as they have not mounted the box is the case canvassed seeking orders from the court for examining the 1st defendant as his witness. Ext.P4 is the copy of that application. The learned Munsiff turned down that request. The request made by the WPC.36359/09 2 petitioner for getting a carbon copy of the order has also not been complied with so far, is the further grievance of the petitioner to approach this Court invoking the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for getting a favourable order on his application. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondents is necessary, and hence, it is dispensed with. A party in a proceeding or suit cannot seek for examining the opposite party as his witness is a well settled proposition. Of course, in exceptional circumstances, the court can summon a party and examine him irrespective of his status as to whether he is the plaintiff or defendant in a suit. In the present case, petitioner/plaintiff has sought for examining the 1st defendant in the suit as his witness for the reason that the defendants have not mounted the box, but, tendered only documentary evidence in respect of their defence. Since he was not given an opportunity to challenge the veracity of the documents so WPC.36359/09 3 produced, he has sought for examining the 1st defendant as a witness. Permission so sought was declined by the learned Munsiff. I do not find any impropriety or illegality in the order passed by the learned Munsiff declining the request of the plaintiff. There is no merit in the writ petition, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp