IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 2996 of 2010(O) ------------------------- OS.239/2008 of RENT CONTROL COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM .................... PETITIONER: --------------- K.SOMAN, AGED 70 YEARS, S/O.KUNJUKRISHNAN, GENERAL SECRETARY, KERALA ARTISAN'S ASSOCIATION, REGISTRATION NUMBER 357/1986, HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT M.G.M.LODGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, NOW RESIDING AT KUNNATHU SIVATHRIPTHI, CHERUVACKAL, SREEKARIYAM P.O.,TVM. BY ADV. SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL SRI.N.KUTTAPPAN THAZHASSERY RESPONDENT: --------------- P.R.DEVADAS, CHIEF EDITOR, KARMAYOGOM, CHENGANNUR (MEMBER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM), RESIDING AT KOUSALYA BHAVAN, AYATHIL, KOLLAM DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC No.2996/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1. COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.239/2008 EXT.P2. COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION DT. 4.1.2010 EXT.P3. COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE EXT.P4. COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ADDL. MUNSIFF COURT (RCC), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN OS NO.239/2008 DT. 20.1.2010 PA TO JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------- W.P (C) No.2996 of 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 31st March, 2010 J U D G M E N T In this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner calls in question Ext.P4 order issued by the Additional Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. Petitioner instituted O.S.239/2008, which was suit for damages. Copy of the plaint is produced as Ext.P1. Defendant entered appearance and filed a written statement. Issues were framed and posted the suit for trial on 4.12.2009. On that day, plaintiff was examined and the suit was posted to 10.12.2009. On that day, PW2 was examined. Thereafter it was posted on 15.12.2009 for the evidence of the defendant. Defendant was examined and evidence was closed. Since it became necessary for the plaintiff to produce certain documents in evidence, they filed an application to re-open the evidence. They produced certain documents. Thereafter, the plaintiff had to be examined again. For that purpose, the case was posted on 4.1.2010. Unfortunately, the plaintiff fell ill and he could not attend the court on the same day. He has produced a medical certificate. He had sought for 40 days time to enable him to W.P (C) No.2996 of 2010 2 appear before the court. However, th court below posted the case on 12.1.2010 and 20.1.2010. Since the petitioner continued to be unable to attend the court, the court below therefore closed th evidence and posted the case for hearing. The said order is produced as Ext.P4 in this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that the medical certificate produced by the plaintiff sufficiently shows that he has unable to attend the court due to reasons beyond his control. He had fallen ill and he could not attend the court. Nothing to indicate that the plaintiff has been protracting the case with ulterior motive. The court below ought to have given an opportunity to the plaintiff to examine him further. 4. There seems to be considerable force in the submission. The court below has not found the medical certificate produced in support of the petition for adjournment to be false. Petitioner has specifically stated that he had been taken ill and therefore he could not attend the court. One cannot believe that plaintiff would W.P (C) No.2996 of 2010 3 have simply said so. Without considering the contention raised by the petitioner, the suit was posted for hearing without completing the evidence. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has fully recovered and he is in a position to give evidence in the case. Therefore, he may be given an opportunity to do so. The prayer made by the petitioner seems to be reasonable. Accordingly, Ext.P4 order is set aside and the court below is directed to give an opportunity to the plaintiff to examine him further, if he so desires. The court below shall make every endeavour to dispose of the suit, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six months from the date of re-opening of the courts after summer vacation. The Writ Petition is disposed of, as above. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE ma W.P (C) No.2996 of 2010 4 W.P (C) No.2996 of 2010 5