IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2008 / 10TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 19683 of 2008(R) -------------------------- OS.849/2007 of I ADDL.SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: T.K.ANIL, S/O KUMARAN, AGED 38 YEARS, THANIKKAPPILLIPARAMBIL,PONNURUNNI P.O., VYTTILLA. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANU SRI.S.K.PREMRAJ SRI.ANOOP JOSEPH SRI.ABHILASH AKBAR SRI.T.B.SIVAPRASAD SMT.M.J.SHINSA MOLE RESPONDENTS: 1. K.R. DEVAKI, W/O LATE KRISHNANKUTTY, THANNIKKAPIL HOUSE,PONNURUNNI DESOM, POONITHURA VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, 2. SHEEJI,D/O. LATE KRISHNANKUTTY, THANNIKKAPIL HOUSE,PONNURUNNI DESOM, POONITHURA VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, 3. SHAJI, S/O. LATE KRISHNANKUTTY, THANNIKKAPIL HOUSE,PONNURUNNI DESOM, POONITHURA VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, 4. BAJI, S/O. LATE KRISHNANKUTTY, THANNIKKAPIL HOUSE,PONNURUNNI DESOM, POONITHURA VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... WP(C).No. 19683 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.849 of 2007 on the file of Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam. The suit is for recovery of money. In the claim petition, petitioner filed a witness list to examine four witnesses. The third witness is the second respondent in the claim petition. This petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India for a direction to Sub Judge to allow petitioner to examine second respondent in the claim petition as a witness on his side and also to direct learned Sub Judge to compel him to be present in court, so as to examine him. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner was heard. When third respondent is the co-respondent in the claim petition, learned Sub Judge was justified in not compelling that party to be examined as witness on the side of petitioner. It is up to that party to decide whether he is to be examined or not. Petitioner is not entitled to compel that he should be examined by the court, as against his wishes. At best, petitioner could request the court to draw necessary adverse inference as against him, if he WP(C) 19683/2008 2 is not examined. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-