IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2011 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1933 OP(C).No. 3154 of 2011(O) ------------------------- IA NO.4488/2011 IN OS.913/2008 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT,NEYYATTINKARA .................... PETITIONER (S): ------------------------------ 1. K.K.VISWANATHAN PILLAI, S/O.MADHAVAN PILLAI, "AISHYANA", TELEPHONE EXCHANGE ROAD, SREEKARIYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 017. 2. K.VASANTHA KUMARI, W/O.S.RAVINDRANATHAN NAIR, "SMRITHI", T.C.22/297, NO.47, SWATHI NAGAR 2ND STREET, PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 005. 3. KIRAN KUMAR,, S/O.RAVINDRANATHAN NAIR, "SMRITHI", T.C.22/297, NO.47, SWATHI NAGAR 2ND STREET, PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 005. 4. S. RAVINDRANATHAN NAIR ALIAS S. RAVINDRANATH, S/O.K.P.S. NAIR, T.C.22/297, NO.47, SWATHI NAGAR 2ND STREET, PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 005. 5. ANANTHAPURI POLYMERS PVT.LTD.,M.P.III/29 MARANALLOOR, PONGUMOODU, KOOVALASSERY P.O., NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 512, REP.BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR K.K.VISWANATHAN PILLAI, S/O.MADHAVAN PILLAI,AISHYANA,TELEPHONE EXCHANGE ROAD, SREEKARIYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 017. BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS SRI.MATHEWS K.UTHUPPACHAN SRI.BINU MATHEW SRI.TERRY V.JAMES SRI.B.J.JOHN PRAKASH SRI.TOM THOMAS (KAKKUZHIYIL) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- R. SUNDAR, S/O. RATHINAVEL, T.C.NO.501/1239, SEETHA BUILDINGS, THALAIYAL, KALADI, MANACAUD VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004. ADV. SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. FOR R SRI.G.P.SHINOD FOR R SRI.MANU V. FOR R THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(C)NO.3154/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF PLAINT O.S.913/2008 DATED 16.10.2008 BEFORE THE THE MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 17.11.2009 FILED BY DEFENDENTS IN O.S.913/2008 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF I.A.3915/2011 DATED 9.8.11 IN O.S.NO.913/2008 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 24.8.2011 OF THE MUNSIFF IN I.A.NO.3915/2011 IN O.S.913/2008 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.4488 OF 2011 DATED 6.9.2011 IN O.S.NO.913 OF 2008 FILED BY THE DEFENDENTS. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.3154 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of October, 2011. JUDGMENT The defendants in O.S.No.913 of 2008 of the court of learned Principal Munsiff, Neyyattinkara are the petitioners challenging the order dated 27.09.2011 on I.A.No.4488 of 2011. After the evidence was closed, petitioners filed that application to reopen the case for further evidence. That request was dismissed by the impugned order. 2. Petitioners have not produced a copy of the order. But I obtained the gist of the order through the Registrar (Judicial) taking into account the urgency of the matter since the case is posted for pronouncing judgment on 28.10.2011. 3. In the gist of the order conveyed by the Registrar (Judicial) it is stated that the learned Munsiff found no reason to allow further evidence to be adduced and accordingly the application was dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that respondent had filed application to reopen the case for further evidence, that was allowed on 23.08.2011 and thereafter Exts.A7 to A9 and X1 were marked. In that situation it was necessary for petitioners to adduce further evidence. 5. It is true that the case is posted for judgment on 28.10.2011 and, it will be hard to allow the case to be reopened at this stage which would cause inconvenience to the learned Munsiff. But, if the parties are not allowed to OP(C)No.3154/2011 2 adduce evidence the result will be that the appellate court may be constrained to remand the case and that will only prolong the decision in the case. In that circumstances I am inclined to allow the request of the petitioners. 6. Learned counsel for respondent requested that in case the case is reopened for further evidence of petitioners, respondent also may be permitted to adduce further evidence. That is a matter which learned Munsiff has to consider if circumstances warranted. Resultantly this Original Petition is allowed as follows: i. The order dismissing I.A.No.4488 of 2011 in O.S.No.913 of 2008 of the court of learned Principal Munsiff, Neyyattinkara is set aside and that application will stand allowed. Learned Munsiff shall give petitioners an opportunity to adduce further evidence as circumstances warranted. ii. The question whether respondent should be permitted to adduce further evidence shall be decided by the learned Munsiff if such a situation arises after adducing further evidence by the petitioners. Registrar (Judicial) shall intimate the learned Principal Munsiff, Neyyattinkara forthwith that the order on I.A.No.4488 of 2011 in O.S.No.913 of 2008 dated 27.09.2011 is set aside and petitioners are given opportunity to adduce further evidence. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks