IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2008 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 16486 of 2008(K) -------------------------- OS.359/1983 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER: ------------ SAKTHIVEL, S/O.LATE PAZHANIYAPPA KOUNDER LAKSHMANAN, CHALLA, MUTHALAMADA AMSOM, CHUTTUR TALUK BY ADV. SRI.N.L.KRISHNAMOORTHY SRI.K.LAKSHMINARAYANAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. LAND TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD 2. ARUMOZHIVARMAN, S/O.LATE KANDASWAMY KOUNDER, MUTHALAMADA AMSOM, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT COIMBATORE TOWN, COIMBATORE DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... WP(C).No. 16486 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 4th DAY OF JUNE, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the defendant and second respondent, the plaintiff in O.S.359 of 1983 on the file of Sub Court, Palakkad. Under Ext.P2 judgment, the suit was originally dismissed, accepting the findings of the Land Tribunal on a reference under Section 125(3) of Kerala Land Reforms Act. Second respondent challenged the judgment before District Court, Palakkad in A.S.163 of 1990. Learned District Judge set aside the finding of the Land Tribunal as well as that of trial court, and remanded the suit for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Learned District Judge specifically directed that in view of the first reference, it is not necessary to refer the question of tenancy once again to the Land Tribunal. This petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India for a direction to the trial court not to dispose the suit, without getting the records which were marked before the Land Tribunal. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard. As is clear from Ext.P2 and P3 judgments, documents were marked in the Land Tribunal proceedings and those documents WP(C)16486 OF 2008 2 were available in the case records when A.S.163 of 1990 was heard and disposed by the learned District Judge. As against the specific direction not to refer the question of tenancy again to the Land Tribunal, trial court referred the question to Land Tribunal and finding out the mistake thereafter, called back the records. The grievance of the petitioner is that while receiving the records, exhibits marked in the earlier proceedings which were earlier produced in court were not available in the records and in spite of request of petitioner, learned Sub Judge is proceeding with the suit without getting the records. Petitioner also pointed out that as per Ext.P5 order in I.A.3056 of 2008 in O.P.27531 of 2000, this court directed the trial court to get all the documents produced in court along with I.A.2550 of 1985 in O.S.359 of 1983. In such circumstances, learned Sub Judge is directed to get back the records and proceed with the file on getting back the records. Petition disposed accordingly. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-