IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 13TH MARCH 2009 / 22ND PHALGUNA 1930 CRP.No. 167 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09/02/2009 IN IA.485/09 & 486/09 IN OS.339/2006 of MUNSIFF COURT,MUVATTUPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): DEFENDANTS --------------------- 1. KUNJOONJ, S/O. DANIYEL, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, AMBALAMTHAKIDIYIL HOUSE, MANEED KARA, MANEED VILLAGE. 2. AVARACHAN, S/O.PATHROSE, VAZHAKKALAYIL HOUSE, MANEED KARA, MANEED VILLAGE. 3. VIJI, S/O. THEVAN, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, AMBALATHADIYIL HOUSE, MANEED KARA, MANEED VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.SUMESH KUMAR N.C. RESPONDENT(S): PLAINTIFF --------------- CHOTHI, S/O. KURUMBAN, CHUNDAMALAYIL HOUSE, MANEED KARA, MANEED VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. ADV. SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRP 167/09 ORDER ON I.A.NO.624 OF 2009 IN CRP NO.167 OF 2009 DISMISSED 13.3.2009 SD/- K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.167 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of March, 2009 ORDER The defendants 1 to 3 in O.S.No.339 of 2006 have challenged the order dated 9th February 2009 in I.A.Nos.485 of 2009 and 486 of 2009 by which the court below did not allow their prayer to reopen the evidence for the purpose of examining witnesses. The application was opposed by the respondents. They contended that the evidence was closed and the prayer to examine witnesses was made at a highly belated stage. Advocate Sri. Biju Abraham, counsel appearing for the respondents, submitted that the evidence was closed in March 2008 and the present application is filed only in February 2009 after the case was posted for judgment. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the suit was filed in a representative capacity under Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Sri.M.S.Madhavan and Sri.Damodharan Namboothiri got themselves impleaded as additional parties. However, the order allowing their CRP 167/09 2 impleadment was set aside by the High Court in W.P.(C) No.9245 of 2008. According to the petitioners, this necessitated the examination of these two persons as witnesses on the side of the defendants. Sri.Biju Abraham submitted that W.P.C.No.9245 of 2008 was disposed of on 29.5.2008 and therefore, the prayer now made is without any bonafides. 3. It is true that there is no justification for the petitioners to apply for reopening the evidence for the purpose of examining the two witnesses at a very belated stage. However, the fact remains that Sri.Madhavan and Sri.Damodharan Namboothiri were impleaded as additional parties in the suit. Later, as per the order passed by the High Court, they were removed from the party array. Only to avoid the grievance that evidence was shut out, I am inclined to allow the petitioners to examine Madhavan and Damodharan Namboothiri as witnesses on their side on payment of costs of Rs.3,000/- to the plaintiff to compensate his inconvenience. 4. Accordingly, the order passed by the court below is set aside. The petitioners are permitted to examine Sri.Madhavan and Sri.Damodharan Namboothiri as witnesses on CRP 167/09 3 their side, provided they pay Rs.3,000/- as costs to the plaintiff. If the petitioners fail to pay the costs of Rs.3,000/-, permission granted to them to examine the witnesses will stand cancelled. The costs shall be paid on 16.3.2009. The witnesses shall be made available before court by the petitioners on 16.3.2009 to which date the case stands posted. The court below shall examine these witnesses on the same date or on any date convenient to the court. However, it is made clear that the petitioners/defendants would not be entitled to pray for adjournment of the case on any ground. The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl