IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2009 / 1ST MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No.2255 of 2009 (R) -------------------------------- LAR.112/2005 of SUB COURT,ATTINGAL .................... PETITIONER: --------------- DR.SATHYENDRAN.T.C., 11/2202, R.K.V.ROAD VIKAS BHAVAN PO., TRIVANDRUM, REP. BY P/A.HOLDER DR.S.D.REETHAKUMARI, D/O.SAROJINI REETHA NIVAS, TC XI 2202, KANAKAKUNNIL, VIKAS BHAVAN PO., KAVADIYAR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADV. SRI.M.R.RAJESH SMT.A.K.PREETHA RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSTP. PULAMON, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------ W. P. C. No.2255 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 21st day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the claimant in LAR.112/05 on the file of the Sub Court, Attingal which is being jointly tried with LAR. Nos.114/05 and 115/05. It is the case of the petitioner that when summons was taken out to the witnesses it was returned stating that witness Nos.1 and 2 could not be found and that therefore, petitioner filed I.A.2167/08 (Ext.P6) to issue summons to witness Nos.1 and 2 and also to accept additional witness schedule but the court below vide Ext.P7 order dt.11/12/08 dismissed the same. The petitioner therefore, prays that direction be issued to the court below to allow Ext.P6 petition quashing Ext.P7 order. W. P. C. No.2255 of 2009 -2- 2. The court below vide Ext.P7 order has observed that two official witnesses one Special Tahsildar and an Assistant Executive Engineer of K.S.T.P were already examined on application of the claimant, but no relevant materials could be brought out in the evidence of those witnesses; that what the claimant wants now is to examine another Special Tahsildar without stating the points to be proved that therefore, the additional witness schedule is not accepted and however, that if the counsel wants to get any private person examined he can produce them or take summons to them “by party” after closing of evidence of the respondents which has already commenced. This shows that the court has made a very lenient approach in permitting the petitioner to adduce evidence though summons W. P. C. No.2255 of 2009 -3- was refused to be issued afresh to the witnesses to whom summons issued were returned unserved. 3. It is submitted that the LAR is one included in the Special List. Exts.P3 and P4 depositions of two witnesses produced before court by the petitioner does not show the date on which they were examined. Obviously they were being examined prior to 06/12/08 on which day was Ext.P5 filed. Ext.P2 is dt.01/09/08. This shows that in September or October, 2008 the trial of the LAR started. However, we are in January, 2009. The court below has given permission to the petitioner to produce those witnesses and to examine them if he wants. In a suit or other proceeding which is already listed, parties cannot protract the trial by taking steps repeatedly like this after trial W. P. C. No.2255 of 2009 -4- has started disabling the court in disposing of the proceedings before it. I see no merit in this Writ Petition and this Writ Petition is dismissed. K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE kns/-