IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 21ST NOVEMBER 2008 / 30TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 34318 of 2008(I) ------------------------------------------- IA 2134/04 IN OS.95/2004 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, KOCHI .................... PETITIONER: N.A.MOHAN SINGH, S/O.AYYAPPAN, AGED 64, NADUVILEZHATH HOUSE, THEKKEN MALIPURAM, AZHEEKAL P.O, PUTHUVYPE VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.RAJAN RESPONDENTS: 1. K.SOMASUNDARAN, S/O.ACHUTHAN, SECTION OFFICER, DOCK LABOUR BOARD DIVISION, COCHIN PORT TRUST, KOCHI-3. 2. K.J.XAVIER, S/O.JOSEPH, KADAVIL HOUSE, EDAKOCHI VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. Balachandran, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C)No.34318 of 2008 I -------------------------- JUDGMENT O.S.No.95/04 is a money suit, which was decreed vide Exhibit P1 judgment on 15.12.2004. Exhibit P2 is the decree. A third party filed I.A.No.2134/04 (Exhibit P3) to release the attachment over the property attached before judgment. The court below dismissed the said petition vide Exhibit P4 order. This Court, vide Exhibit P5 judgment in Ex.F.A.No. 30/06, set aside Exhibit P4 order and remitted it back to the Sub Court, Kochi with direction to dispose of Exhibit P3 afresh in three months. Strangely enough, it is seen that by Exhibit P6, the court below has passed the following judgment on 16.1.2008: “Plaintiff called. Absent. No representation. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.” WPC 34318/08 2 Obviously, the said judgment dated 16.1.2008 is an erroneous order passed by mistake and pointing out the mistake, the petitioner/plaintiff filed Exhibit P7 petition (I.A.No.150/08 in I.A.No.2134/04 in O.S.No.95/04) praying for the error or mistake being corrected and to recall Exhibit P6 judgment dismissing the suit. Still, strange is the order passed on that I.A. and that is extracted below: “It is seen that no mistake or error was committed by this Court as averred. Hence this petition is dismissed.” 2. It appears from the orders passed by the Presiding Officer that she has absolutely no grip to deal with civil matters pending before her nor has she read the affidavit accompanying I.A.No. 150/08 (Exhibit P7). This is a strange situation and probably, she is not prepared either to peruse the records or to hear the submissions of the WPC 34318/08 3 Lawyers. She requires intensive training in the Judicial Academy. Place the matter before the Honourable Judge in charge of Ernakulam District as also before the Honourable Judges, who constitute the Training committee in the Judicial Academy, for the needful being done. 3. To avoid further delay in the matter, without notice to the respondents, I set aside Exhibit P6 judgment as also Exhibit P8 order passed by the Sub Judge, Kochi and direct the Officer to pass appropriate orders afresh on I.A.No.2134/04 as directed vide Exhibit P5 judgment in Ex.F.A.No. 30/06. Registry shall get remarks from the Officer concerned and put up within two weeks from today. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment in the court below forthwith with notice to the respondents, as this writ petition is being disposed of without notice to the respondents and shall move for appropriate orders being got passed on I.A.No.2134/04 in compliance with Exhibit P5 WPC 34318/08 4 judgment. This writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. Issue copy of this judgment urgently to the counsel for the petitioner. Registry shall transmit copies of this judgment to the Honourable Judge in charge of Ernakulam District and to the Honourable Judges, who constitute the Training committee, for appropriate action being taken in the matter forthwith in the interest of the litigant public. 21st November, 2008 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv