IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2009 / 29TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 23956 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.939/2007 of I ADDL.SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- RAJAMMA, KAITHAVALAPPIL, KALLAI, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. MR.V.PREMCHAND RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- RAGHAVAN, KOLLIMUTTATHUPARAMBIL, THEKKUMBHAGAM, THRIPUNITHURA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.23956 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 20th August, 2009 JUDGMENT The Writ Petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: 1. To call for records leading to Ext.P6 and P7 and quash the same by a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order. 2. To issue a direction to the 1st Additional Sub Judge, Ernakulam to allow Ext.P4 and P5 applications and give opportunity to the counsel for plaintiff to argue the matter in O.S.No.939/2007 and connected suits. 3. To grant any other relief this Hon'ble Court deem fit. 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.939 of 2007 on the file of the 1st Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam. That suit is being jointly tried with two other cases and the trial is in progress. An application filed by the petitioner to summon two witnesses, one among them with direction to produce a document as well, after hearing both sides, was declined by the learned Sub Judge vide P6 order. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the Writ Petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made and the facts and circumstances presented W.P.C.No.23956/09 - 2 - with reference to P6 order impugned in the Writ Petition, I find no notice to the respondent is necessary, and hence it is dispensed with. Learned counsel for the petitioner inviting my attention to P1, copy of the plaint of the suit, contended that to sustain the relief claimed thereunder, the examination of the witnesses sought for is absolutely essential and so much so, the learned Sub Judge went wrong in declining the request to summon those witnesses vide P6 order. After perusing P6 order with reference to other materials tendered with the Writ Petition, I find, it may not be proper or appropriate for this court in its visitorial jurisdiction to interfere with P6 order, admittedly, passed by the learned Subordinate Judge after commencement of the trial of the suit, which is jointly being tried with two other cases. I do not want to express any opinion on the merits of P6 order, but only to state that prima facie no impropriety or illegality is spelt out by that order warranting its interference by this court. In case, any adverse decision is rendered in the suit against the petitioner, it is open to her to canvass the correctness of P6 order in the appeal against that decision before the appropriate forum as provided by law. Reserving her right to do so in the event of such a contingency, the Writ Petition is closed. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE W.P.C.No.23956/09 - 3 -